Through in-depth analysis of how the nature of fatherhood and the role of the male within the family visibly changes across three films from the Media Archive for Central England (MACE), and placing these films into a historical context, this essay will explore how fatherhood and masculinity evolved in mid-twentieth century Britain.
The first film is titled ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’. The film follows the Coles family during trips to two farms in 1941. The father is almost entirely absent in this film, and it is notable as an example of 1941 fatherhood for this very reason. For the majority of the film the young children of the Coles family are shown being carefully guided around and protected by a group of women. The father has one notable moment within the film. Following a title card that reads ‘John wants to be like Daddy’, young John is shown parading in what appear to be his father’s work clothes, and stumbling towards his father who is presumably operating the camera.[1]
This demonstrates there is a clear separation between motherhood, in which the women in the family carefully tend to the young children and are active and hands-on presences, and fatherhood, in which the male’s involvement is as a breadwinner and a provider, as shown by his most significant presence in the film being reduced down to his work clothes. Martin Francis notes that during the early twentieth century ‘[w]hile it was acceptable for fathers to take time to play with older children […] men took little interest in the rearing of infants.’[2] Laura King supports this statement, asserting that whilst ‘Fatherhood was a crucial aspect of adult masculinity in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries […] [e]conomic provision for dependants formed the central core of fatherhood throughout the second half of the nineteenth century and beyond’.[3] This suggests, as does the film itself, that there were distinct gendered spheres of influence within the 1941 family, with the mother as parent and the father as provider.
There is a notable male presence in the film that requires exploration. About halfway through the film, an elderly man is shown playing with Brenda and John whilst they are ‘bathing and paddling in the pools at Monsal Dale’.[4] However, it is unlikely to be the children’s father for one key reason, and that is his advanced age, making him much more likely to be a grandfather or other relation. Whilst King discusses the limitations within fatherhood during the period this film was produced, there is a large historiography that acknowledges the factors that permitted transgressions of these limitations, one of them being age. King herself notes that whilst men across all social classes were reluctant to be seen pushing a pram or otherwise being visibly involved in the traditionally feminine sphere of domesticity that is child rearing, to do so was ‘permissible for grandfathers, hinting at the differing masculinities understood to be appropriate for different age groups’.[5] Joanna Bourke similarly notes that ‘[p]ushing a pram was often cited as the most humiliating of tasks, although a grandfather could do it’.[6] King posits that this disparity in appropriate masculinity when it comes to fathers and grandfathers could be due to ‘“softening” of masculinity as men got older, perhaps due to a waning desire to assert their manliness, or alternatively because of a security in a masculinity already achieved’.[7] In this context it seems more likely that the man playing with the children is a grandfather, and the father remains at a respectable distance for fear of ridicule and attacks upon his masculinity, and to preserve his role as master and provider.
Finally, the father’s absence is interesting for the time period in that he is likely operating the camera. In the film, when John is wearing his father’s clothing, at several points he is drawn towards the camera and whoever is operating it, demonstrating the authority that the operator has over John.[8] Roger Odin states that, within the family hierarchy inherent in home movies, ‘the father has a particular position; it is he who directs the formation of familial memory […], who takes the photographs; and, obviously, it is he who shoots the films.’[9] By operating the camera, the father of the Coles family is taking control of how the family views itself, as well as the outward image of the family, and is enforcing a certain family hierarchy. The father of the Coles family staged John’s wearing of his clothes, and would no doubt have been the one to include the title card stating how much John wanted to be like his father. The father wanted to distance himself from the more traditionally domestic spheres of child rearing and motherhood, yet also present himself as valuable, expressing his value through his work clothes as symbols of his role as provider. This brand of fatherhood, so dominant from the late Victorian period and through the interwar years in Britain, would be replaced across a period of drastic change in the mid-twentieth century, resulting in something resembling modern fatherhood, more active and with less strict gendered spheres of control and influence.
The second film is titled ‘All in a Day’ and documents a day in the life of the Whitcombe family in Lincolnshire in 1952. Only eleven years separate this film from the film of the Coles family, yet the difference in the visible displays of fatherhood and masculinity are remarkable, though there are also similarities that remain. One key difference is the massively increased presence of the father within the film. The father in this film is shown actually physically interacting and playing with his child, making her dance, carrying her, and helping her to interact with the family dog.[10]
This more involved fatherhood, as evidenced within the film, was caused by a number of factors. One important factor was the increasing attraction of home life in the post-war period due to improved quality of housing and the surge of household appliances designed to make home-making and maintenance easier and more enjoyable. Evidence of this can be seen in the film as the mother uses a vacuum cleaner.[11] In an article written in the 1950s concerning the popularity of domestic life, British social scientist Mark Abrams stated that ‘the working-class home, as well as the middle-class home, has become a place that is […] in fact, pleasant to live in. The outcome is a working-class way of life which is decreasingly concerned with… values wider than those of the family.’[12] The fatherhood and masculinity displayed by the father from the first film had its source in environments outside of the family such as in the workplace. However, by the 1950s, fatherhood and masculinity were more able to be based on roles within the family, as men were able at times to swap traditional homosocial environments for the now more attractive environment of the family home. Francis notes that the validation from traditionally masculinity began to take place largely in the male imagination, as men could be ‘attracted to the responsibilities (and pleasures) of marriage and fatherhood, but also equally enchanted by fantasies of the energetic life and homosocial camaraderie of the adventure hero.’[13] Thus men felt more able to be active participants within the household and the family.
Another cause of this change in fatherhood that is evident in this film is the effects of World War II. 5,896,000 men served in the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom during World War II, which constituted 7 out of every 10 men born in Britain between 1915 and 1927.[14] By the end of the war 264,443 had been killed, 41,327 were missing, 277,077 were injured, and 172,592 were prisoners of war, amounting to a total 755,439 casualties.[15] The impact this had on men and masculinity in Britain was understandably massive. Having experienced the hardships and ‘adventure’ of war on a first-hand basis and in an environment entirely devoid of femininity, upon their return many men were more willing to be more active within the traditionally feminine environment of the home, and were less likely to shirk these responsibilities in favour of the homosocial environments from which masculinity had traditionally been derived. When Mass Observation asked the public in 1943 what home meant to them, one soldier on leave stated that ‘I never appreciated home before the war so much as I do now.’[16] Clare Langhamer argues that World War II had a significant effect on both male and female attitudes towards the home and family in this way, as its ‘protracted nature’ and ‘the social dislocation effected by large-scale evacuation schemes and the geographical mobility of civilian war-workers, as well as servicemen and women, fostered […] an intensified romance with home life’.[17] King and Angela Davis echo this sentiment, stating that, for men returning from the front, ‘[f]atherhood was a convenient way to help [them] position themselves and be positioned socially within “normal”, peacetime, family life, and away from soldierhood and war’, which gave rise to ‘increasing involvement of men in family life’.[18] This change in perspective after the war could help to explain the differences in the visible displays of fatherhood and masculinity displayed between the two films thus far discussed, as one takes place in the very early stages of the war, whilst the other takes place some years after as the changes alluded to by the Mass Observation respondent and the historiography were taking place.
Whilst there are clear changes in fatherhood apparent between the two films, it is also important to note that these changes were not universal or absolute, and this is evident with the film of the Whitcombe family. Much of daily life for the Whitcombes appears to involve the mother doing all of the housework. She vacuums, she bathes and dresses the baby, she brings her husband drinks and his meals, she takes the dog for walks (along with the child, notably being the one to push the rather expensive-looking pram), bathes the dog, and goes out to buy food and groceries. The only times the father is seen is when he is receiving food or beverages from his wife, is at play with the child and dog, and one instance of housework when he takes a scythe to some overgrown bushes in the garden.[19]
This demonstrates that there was still clear gendered distinction within marriage and parenthood, between what fell into the male sphere and the feminine sphere of responsibility. Davis and King note that even by this period in 1952 ‘women’s role still remained primarily in the home, and this reinforced the distinction of men’s involvement as “help”’.[20] Langhamer also takes this view of men as playing a subordinate role to mothers in the home, stating that men were limited to more masculine jobs such as yard work (as seen in this film) and mending, as they were ‘time-limited jobs rather than more expansive responsibilities’.[21] This attitude can be seen in Mass Observation responses in 1948 to the question of whether men should help around the house. One male respondent states firmly that ‘I consider all domestic work as secondary to other kinds of work […]. I would postpone [domestic work] should other work appear as more urgent.’[22] This supports Davis and King’s opinion that women were still primary actors within the home and the family whilst men were secondary. Whilst men were willing to be more involved within the home and family than they had been a decade previously, there was still a lingering focus and prioritisation of work outside the home, preserving the image of the father as the provider that was present in the first film, which leads them to become more ‘helpers’ than fully involved modern fathers as might be recognisable today.
The final film is titled ‘Caravan and Boating Holiday, Devon’ (1957) and follows a family caravan holiday to Dartmouth in 1957, thus taking place sixteen years after the first film discussed and five years after the second. This film distinguishes itself from the others in the willingness of the father to more obviously transgress traditional gender boundaries. Whilst in the second film the father was clearly more involved and more present than in the first, his presence was still ultimately rooted in gender specific areas such as the workplace, some appropriate domestic chores, and in play. In this film, however, the father appears less concerned about maintaining a strict traditional masculinity. In the film the father appears at one point to cross-dress, stuffing his top to imitate a woman’s body whilst another woman laughs, and also allows either the women or the children to braid his hair in a feminine fashion that is clearly met with some amusement by those involved.[23] This demonstrates a comfortability and an acceptance of femininity that is not present in the earlier films. This difference could potentially be explained by the differing economic and social circumstances surrounding each home movie. Francis states that, during the depression and the hard years of the inter-war period, ‘unemployment struck at the very heart of the self-respect and independence which had remained so important in the fashioning of working-class masculinities since the nineteenth century.’[24] Even in the years immediately post-war, during a period of full employment, one engineer’s wife remarked to Mass Observation that, regarding the promise of improved housing and household goods and appliances, ‘[i]t’s one thing knowing that “Britain Can Make it” but what I want to know is when Britain can get it.’[25] In comparison, by the late 1950s, Britain was enjoying greater prosperity than ever. It is possible that this rising affluence allowed for a more stable masculinity that was less afraid of appearing feminine or engaging with femininity. Nicky Hart notes that during the 1950s ‘one concomitant of the dimunition [sic] of class consciousness which accompanied the growing affluence of manual workers was a decline in gender inequality’.[26] The masculinity being expressed in this film was a more secure and comfortable one than that in the previous two films.
However, it is also important to note, and it is especially apparent in this film, that class played an important role in how people and families experienced parenthood and fatherhood. In this film the possessions on display suggest the wealth of a middle-class family. The camera lingers over camping equipment, caravans, boats, clothes, cars and other expensive items. The very fact that the family is on a seaside holiday at all suggests a certain degree of wealth. On the effects of class on fatherhood King states that, ‘[w]hilst working-class fathers might be required to take baby out in a pram to allow female family members to undertake other housework, for upper-class fathers such an activity would be optional, as a nurse or nanny would usually care for children.’[27] The experience of a middle- or upper-class family such as this one could also not be used to explore working-class gender identities and role during this period. Langhamer states that the working classes, especially those ‘rooted in areas of heavy industry, identified the maintenance of more rigid gender roles.’[28] However, Langhamer also notes that in general ‘it seems accurate to conclude that there was an increasingly active masculine role within postwar domesticity, albeit within a wider framework of continuity in female responsibility for actually running the home.’[29] So, whilst it is important to note that these films do not exist in individual vacuums, and are each subject to different influences based on locality, social class, age, and numerous others, they do ultimately represent a general movement in fatherhood and masculinity in the mid-twentieth century, a movement away from traditional strict gendered roles of father and mother to create more active and involved fathers.
In conclusion, the films demonstrate a clear progression in the nature of fatherhood in the mid-twentieth century. In the first film, the father is largely absent, and his presence is only felt through his workplace-based masculinity that can be seen in the behaviour of his son. There is clearly a strict separation between a mother as an involved parent and a father as a provider. In the second film, these boundaries are less rigid, and a more involved and present fatherhood is evident. The father plays with his children, and engages in some household chores. However these boundaries are not entirely destroyed, as the father still prioritises work other than household work and garners some masculinity from the workplace, and the extent of his involvement is limited both by limitations to his time and limitations to the number of gender appropriate household chores like yard work. This is representative of changes in Britain due to a shift towards prioritisation of the home and the family, as well as the after effects of World War II and its effects on masculinity. The third film demonstrates the most stable version of fatherhood and masculinity of the three. The line between feminine and masculine is even more blurred, as the father is comfortable not only interacting with his children but in practicing other traditionally feminine behaviours through cross-dressing. Whilst these changes represent a general movement in fatherhood in Britain, it is also important to note that individual cases can be influenced by class, amongst other things, and these films, by virtue of being home movies filmed on family cameras, portray a middle-class fatherhood that may not be representative of other experiences. However the historiography and primary sources would still support the idea of a general changing and loosening of gendered boundaries surrounding fatherhood and masculinity in mid-twentieth century Britain. This is an interesting area of study as the distance in fatherhood explored in this essay inevitably often leads to mothers being the central area of investigation when it comes to the family and child-rearing. It would be interesting to take a look at more modern sources, such as Homer from The Simpsons, and explore whether these modern representations of fatherhood are accurate and what influences they have had on fatherhood in Britain.
Notes
[1] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, Media Archive for Central England (MACE), University of Lincoln, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.
[2] Martin Francis, ‘The Domestication of the Male? Recent Research on Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century British Masculinity’, Historical Journal 45:3 (2002), 637-652 (639)
[3] Laura King, ‘Hidden Fathers? The Significance of Fatherhood in Mid-Twentieth-Century Britain’, Contemporary British History 26:1 (2012), 25-46 (26).
[4] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.
[5] Laura King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men Pushing Their Pram Proudly’, Cultural and Social History 10:4 (2013), 599-617 (601).
[6] Joanna Burke, Working Class Cultures in Britain, 1890-1960: Gender, Class, and Ethnicity (London, 1994), p. 77.
[7] King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men’, 608.
[8] ‘Coles: 1941 Compilation’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/coles-1941-compilation.
[9] Roger Odin, ‘The Home Move and Space of Communication’, in Laura Rascaroli, Gwenda Young and Barry Monahan (eds.), Amateur Filmmaking: The Home Movie, The Archive, The Web (New York, 2014), pp. 15-26 (p. 16).
[10] ‘All in a Day’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Mark Abrams, ‘The Home-Centred Society’, The Listener (1959), pp. 914–915.
[13] Martin Francis, ‘A Flight from Commitment? Domesticity, Adventure and the Masculine Imaginary in Britain after the Second World War’, Gender & History 19:1 (2007), 163-185 (181).
[14] British Government, Strength and Casualties of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services of the United Kingdom 1939 to 1945 (Cambridge, 1946), p.2. UK Parliamentary Papers, Command Papers CMD-6832.
[15] Ibid., p. 7.
[16] Mass-Observation Archive (M-OA), File Report 1616, March 1943, p. 2.
[17] Claire Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home in Postwar Britain’, Journal of Contemporary History 40:2 (2005), 341-362 (348).
[18] Angela Davis and Laura King, ‘Gendered Perspectives on Men’s Changing Familial Roles in Postwar England, c.1950–1990’, Gender & History 30:1 (2018), 70-92 (71).
[19] ‘All in a Day’, MACE, http://www.macearchive.org/films/all-day.
[20] Davis and King, ‘Gendered Perspectives’, 83; Angela Davis, Modern Motherhood: Women and Family in England c.1945–2000 (Manchester, 2012) pp. 198-199.
[21] Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home’, 356.
[22] M-OA, Directive Respondent (DR) 4815, March 1948.
[23] ‘Caravan and Boating Holiday, Devon’ (1957), MACE, https://vimeo.com/251631665 (log-in required).
[24] Francis, ‘The Domestication of the Male?’, 650.
[25] M-OA, FR 2441, December 1946, p. 15.
[26] Nicky Hart, ‘Gender and the Rise and Fall of Class Politics’, New Left Review 175 (1989), 24.
[27] King, ‘Now You See a Great Many Men’, 603-604.
[28] Langhamer, ‘The Meanings of Home’, 357.
[29] Ibid.
Teaching with MACE 