“New Fatherhood” in Practice: Domestic and Parental Work Performed by Men in France and in the Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Housework, a traditional topic in research on women and gender, has only recently begun to be studied from the standpoint of men. This article undertakes a comparison between France and the Netherlands, two countries that largely resemble each other from the standpoint of government intervention and the connections between work and family life, but differ in their stated political priorities regarding women and the structuring of women’s employment. This comparison allows the author to reveal trends in the division of domestic labour between the sexes that hold across the board, regardless of particular cultural differences in representations of the roles of men and women in the family. Based on national survey data on “daily timetables”, the analysis shows changes and continuity in men’s involvement in housework, first as regards the male population as a whole, and then fathers in particular. The study brings out preferences for doing housework rather than parental work among fathers in France but not in the Netherlands. These preferences are linked to a change in social representations of domestic and parental tasks that have assigned new and different values to these tasks depending on whether or not they are performed by men. “New fatherhood” appears in any case to be an image with an ideological function more than a reality in practice, at least when the objective criterion used is the amount of time spent on the daily tasks of domestic life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".