Fathering and
mothering with boys
and girls – the example
of fathers’ physical play
Richard Fletcher
Introduction – fathering today in developed economies
When they attend the ‘fathers only’ sessions as part of antenatal
classes the men are aware that this is something novel. There
were no such discussions when their own fathers were approaching the birth. When asked ‘Why not do your fathering just like
your father did?’ their immediate response is that expectations
have changed. Some men will emphasise that their own father
was a ‘good father’, even though he was at work most of the time;
a comment is usually added ‘That was back then – things are
different now.’ They also acknowledge the pressure from the women in their lives to be involved. For today’s fathers leaving the
care of the baby to the mother is not an option.
Usually, there will be a pause at this stage, and then one of the
men will say, ‘And because I want to have a good relationship
with my child’. The other men will nod in agreement or add their
own, similar wish.
The men’s responses to the question of “Why do your fathering
differently to your own fathers?” shows how far gender roles
have changed over the last 50 years. Surveys of community va-
1
lues now consistently say that fathers should join mothers in the
rearing of children. A second major shift is the women’s change
in work patterns and participation in public life. The change for
fathers goes deeper though than increasing (somewhat) their
participation in housework and ‘looking after’ the children. There is a new awareness among men of the connection between
fathers and infants; this relationship is becoming recognised as
an important part of a father’s role and a source of satisfaction
for fathers (King, 2005; Fletcher, 2011).
The social forces that have brought mothers’ and fathers’ roles
closer together have also reduced the differences between the
behaviours of boys and girls. There is widespread support for
reducing gender stereotyping so that that boys’ and girls’ might
fully develop their capacities. However it is now realised that it
is not enough to simply attempt to dismantle the categories of
male and female and aim to eradicate any differences between
fathers and mothers (and boys and girls) (Fletcher 2011). This
realization has come about through advances in the scientific
understanding of human development. In the 1970s and 1980s
it was popular to maintain that all differences in gender were
socially based and that biological differences were not important.
Research since that time has underscored the impact of biological differences between men and women with implications for
fathering and mothering (Gettlera et al., 2011). The decade of the
brain, for example, led to a new understanding of the differences
between male and female brain structure and function with implications for fathering and mothering (Seifritz et al., 2003). We
now have a more sophisticated understanding of gender, which
includes genetic and hormonal factors along with environmental
and social factors.
This new approach to gender means that parenting is in transition. Parents, and the professionals who support them, must
decide which differences between mothering and fathering
should be recognised, and also which differences between boys
and girls are important to support. This is not an easy task. Since
2
the science of male-female differences (in fathering versus mothering for example) is still emerging, identifying sex-specific
parenting practices to be acknowledged and encouraged is not
simple (Gryczkowski et al., 2010). In this paper the nature and of
fathers’ physical play is examined to illustrate the way in which
particular father-child interactions may be supported for different reasons to benefit both boys and girls.
Father’s physical play
Fathers have been found to use play as an engagement activity
more often than mothers and to be more encouraging of physical
play. Researchers investigating infants’ arousal and excitement,
for example, noticed that mothers tend to smoothly modulate
the level of arousal whereas fathers generate more abrupt leaps
of excitement (Feldman, 2003). Since learning to regulate excitement and arousal is a key developmental task for infants the different playful styles of mother and fathers assisted the infant to
better manage their arousal. Rather than see fathers as less-than
mothers, this research points to the possible benefits of different
interaction styles.
One style of playfulness, involving, unstructured, competitive
wrestling-style play, “Rough and Tumble Play” (RTP) has been
of particular interest to scholars examining the role of fathers.
RTP identifies a set of interactive behaviours that have been well
documented among young primates and which, when applied
to parenting, highlights the differences between mothers’ and
fathers’ play with young children (dePietro 1981; Paquette et al.,
2003; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Father-child RTP is thought to
confer developmental benefits for young children in a way that
is similar to that seen for RTP in non-human species (MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Paquette et al., 2003). Children’s relations
with their peers, for example, are rated more positively by their
teachers when fathers physically engage with their children (especially boys) (MacDonald & Parke, 1984) and pre-schoolers’ aggression, avoidance and lack of co-operation with others (rated
by teachers) were predicted by fathers’ negative reactions in competitive, reaction-based hand slapping games (Carson & Parke,
3
1996) while mothers’ reactions were not predictive. Children’s
attachment security is also predicted by physical play. Newland,
Coyl and Freeman (2008) found that preschooler attachment
was more strongly predicted by fathers’ ‘rough housing’ than by
their parenting consistency or the degree of co-parenting with
the mother. Father’s challenging play was also identified as a unique predictor of attachment in older children. Adolescents’ secure attachment at 16 years was predicted by fathers’ not mothers’
‘sensitive and challenging play’ interactions when the child was
two years old (Grossman et al., 2002).
Fathers physical play with boys
‘I know he wants to wrestle when he gets that gleam in his eye. I chase
him into the bedroom and he throws himself on our big bed. I play
the bulldozer. I put my head down and push and push until he falls
off the bed onto the carpet. Other times we do World Wrestling. I push
him down on the bed, where I am going to slam him, but I do it really
slowly, so that he has time to roll away before I crash down on the bed.
There’s lots of tickling, too.’ Fletcher 2011 p96
Many fathers (and mothers) of boys say they do not have a choice
about rough-and-tumble play: their boys demand it, push for it,
and throw themselves into it no matter what the parent wants!
With girls, there seems to be more room for fathers to decide
how often to play and how roughly, as the pressure coming from
their daughter is not as strong (Fletcher 2011). The contribution
of active play to the physical activity of primary school children –
(Brockman et al., 2010). The benefits to boys may be seen in the
area of managing their social interactions and reducing aggression. As Tremblay (2010) has persuasively argued, aggressive
behaviour is not learned through interactions with the environment but is unlearned, in particular during the early childhood
period. This is also the time when boys seek out RTP with their
fathers and then later, their peers (Pellegrini & Smith,1998; Paquette et al., 2003). Fathers RTP play can be one important area
where boys learn how to manage aggressive impulses, not by
being punished for transgressions but through playful, effortful
4
competition where the father provides safety for his son to explore his physical power (Flanders et al 2009; Fletcher et al 2011).
Fathers physical play with girls
‘I have a ten-year-old stepdaughter who I have cared for since she was
two. We wriggle around on the floor, kind of intertwining our bodies,
and I have to find a way to get away from her. Usually she wins,
because she has ‘knees and elbows of death’. I think that rough-andtumble is important, particularly for girls. I want her to view herself
as a physical being who is strong, resilient and resourceful.’ (Fletcher,
2011, p96).
For most fathers, the problem with rough-and-tumble play is not
in the play itself. A girl who gets hurt easily is no different to a
boy who does: they both need encouragement to try again. A girl
who hits recklessly has to be reminded about limits, just like a
boy. The problem is not usually the physical activity, but other
people’s reaction to the physical activity. Many separated fathers
with daughters are self-conscious about physical play with their
daughters in case their play is misinterpreted as inappropriate.
Other fathers worry that it will lead to their daughters (and their
sons, in some cases) to be too rough. What is not so often appreciated by fathers, however, is that rough-and-tumble play might
be particularly beneficial to girls.
The most obvious area of benefit to girls is that they become physically active. The physical exertion of the playing adds to their
health, and they will also be more likely to see physical activity
as a way of enjoying themselves as they grow up. Playing rough
physical games, with shrieking, running, giggling, catching and
laughter, can cement the attractiveness of physical activity in
girls’ thinking. Of course, it will help if fathers continue to be
physical with her – drive her to her sports events and suggest
energetic father–daughter activities to show her that her father
also enjoys being physical. But it starts with early play. This is a
time she needs a chance to practise using all her strength and
agility trying to defeat her father.
5
In addition, there are benefits from rough-and-tumble play to
girls’ physical and social health. Fathers may be aware that their
daughter’s muscles will strengthen with exercise. What is less
well known is that bones also get stronger from exercise, especially from weight-bearing exercise such as jumping (Fuchs et
al., 2001). If physical play with daughters leads to enjoying being
physically active – not simply doing stretching exercise (which
is common for females), but taking up more high-impact activities – they are likely to have fewer bone fractures as a child and,
as an adult, will be protected from bone weakness, which can
be serious for older women. The impact of jumping onto the
ground (not from two-storey buildings, but from a low fence, for
example) helps girls’ bones become thicker and stronger.
The second way that father-daughter rough-and-tumble play
might be a benefit is through its influence on her self-image.
Physical and affectionate play is important for her because it is
not sexual and does not rely on her ‘beauty’ or on her looking
attractive. Of course, when a daughter looks at her father with
shining, excited eyes as she waits to be chased, then she does
look truly beautiful. But a fathers’ appreciation of her is a far
cry from the appreciation that she sees everywhere on billboards
and in magazines, films, etc. Rough-and-tumble play is one key
area for a daughter to build her sense of being a capable, strong
person who is fun to be with.
In conclusion
Social pressures and knowledge of male female differences are
changing the way that fathers and mothers go about their parenting. It will be important for professionals, most of whom
were trained before the recent research on fathers’ influence on
children became widely available, to update their understanding
of sex-linked parenting. This will have policy and practice implications (Freeman & Brown, 2004) and is a fruitful area of exploration with fathers and mothers that can benefit both boys’ and
girls’ healthy development.
6
Reference List
Brockman, R., Jago, R., & Fox, K.
(2010). The contribution of active
play to the physical activity of
primary school children, Preventive
Medicine, 51, 144–147.
Carson, J.L., & Parke, R.D, (1996). Reciprocal Negative Affect in ParentChild Interactions and Children’s
Peer Competency, Child Development,
67, 2217-2226.
di Pietro, J. A. (1981). Rough and tumble
play: A function of gender, Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 50-58.
Feldman, R. (2003). Infant-Mother and
Infant-Father Synchrony: The Coregulation of Positive Arousal. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1-23.
Flanders, J. L., Leo, V., Paquette, D.,
Pihl, R. O., & Se´guin, J. E. (2009).
Rough-and-Tumble Play and the
Regulation of Aggression: An Observational Study of Father–Child
Play Dyads. Aggressive Behavior, 35,
285-295.
Fletcher, R. (2011). The Dad Factor: How
father-baby bonding helps a child for life,
Finch Publishing, Sydney.
Fletcher, R., May, C., St George, J.,
Morgan, P.J., & Lubans, D. R.
(2011). Fathers’ Perceptions of
Rough & Tumble Play: implications
for early childhood services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(4),
131-138.
Fletcher, R., St George, J.,& Freeman,
E. (2011) The development of a
measure of high quality ‘Rough
and Tumble’ play. Growing up solid:
Integrating emotional and mental health
throughout infancy, childhood and adolescence, RANZCP Faculty of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry and Australian Association for Infant Mental
Health conference Perth May 2011
Freeman, N. K., & Brown, M. H. (2004).
Reconceptualizing Rough and Tumble Play: Ban the Banning, Advances
in Early Education and Day Care, 13,
219-234.
Fuchs, R.K., Bauer, J.J., & Snow C.M.
(2001). Jumping Improves Hip and
Lumbar Spine Bone Mass in Prepubescent Children: A Randomized
Controlled Trial. Journal Of Bone And
Mineral Research, 148-156.
Gettlera, L. T., McDadea, T. W., Feranilc, A. B. & Kuzawa, C. W. (2011).
Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in
human males, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States
of America. Published online before
print September 12, 2011, doi:
10.1073/pnas.1105403108
Grossman, K., Grossman, K. E.,
Fremmer-Bonbik, E., Kindler, H.,
Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmerman, P. (2002). The uniqueness of
the Child-Father Attachment Relationship: Fathers’ Sensitive and Challenging Play as a Pivotal Variable in
a 16-year Longitudinal Study, Social
Development, 11(3), 307-331.
Gryczkowski, M. R., Jordan, S. S., &
Mercer, S. H. (2010). Differential
7
Relations between Mothers’ and
Fathers’ Parenting Practices and
Child Externalizing Behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19,
539-546.
King, A. (2005). The ‘quiet revolution’
amongst men. Developing the practice of working with men in family
relationships. Children Australia,
30(2), 1-8.
Newland, L. A., Coyl, D. D., & Freeman,
H. (2008). Predicting preschoolers’
attachment security from fathers’
involvement, internal working models, and use of social support, Early
Child Development and Care, 178(7),
785-801.
Macdonald, K., Parke, R. D. (1984).
Bridging the Gap: Parent-Child Play
Interaction and Peer Interactive
Competence, Child Development, 55,
1265-1277.
Paquette, D., Carbonneou, R., Dubeau,
D., Bigras, M., & Tremblay, R. E.
(2003). Prevalence of father-child
rough-and-tumble play and physical
aggression in preschool children,
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2), 171-189.
Pellegrini, A., Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: the nature and
function of a neglected aspect of
play, Child Development, 69, 557–598.
8
Seifritz, E., Esposito, F., Neuhoff, J.,
Lu’thi, A., Mustovic, H., Dammann
G, von Bardeleben, U. Radue, E. W.
Cirillo, S., Tedeschi, G., & Di Salle,
F. (2003). Differential sex-independent amygdala response to infant
crying and laughing in parents versus nonparents. Biological Psychiatry,
54 (12), 1367-1375.
Tremblay, R. E. (2010). Developmental
origins of disruptive behaviour problems: The ‘original sin’ hypothesis ,
epigenetics and their consequences
for prevention. Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 51(4), 341-367.