This article aims to assess the contention that a ‘feminist’ ideology is associated with a ‘cooling’ of intimacy in heterosexual relationships, as argued by scholars such as Arlie Hochschild and Eva Illouz. According to this thesis, such an ideology, ‘abducted’ by a commercial spirit, encourages women to disengage from warm intimate bonds with others and to prioritize their own personal fulfilment and parity in care and housework. Drawing on two qualitative empirical studies exploring couples’ intimate lives and their feminist and egalitarian preferences and practices in leave, care and housework, this article examines in detail the basis of this thesis, and its effectiveness in explaining the lived experiences of parent couples’ negotiations of this terrain. The data were collected through focus group discussions with parents not sharing leave and a detailed ethnography with couples sharing leave. The comparison shows that, far from observing a clear dichotomy between ‘cold’ feminists and ‘warm’ traditional couples, both sets of parents present a more complex picture of ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ relations. The analysis enables a critical appreciation of sociological theorizing about gender equality and intimacy, contributing to sociological debates around individualism, feminism and family life.
AhmedS. (2010). Feminist killjoys (and other willful subjects). The Scholar and Feminist Online Journal, 8. Retrieved from http://sfonline.barnard.edu/polyphonic/ahmed_01.htm (last accessed 12 November 2018).
2.
BallS.VincentC.KempC.PietikaienS. (2004). Middle class fractions, childcare and the ‘relational’ and ‘normative’ aspects of class practices. The Sociological Review, 52, 478–502.
3.
BaumanZ. (2001). The individualized society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
BeckU. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage.
6.
BeckU.Beck-GernsheimE. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
7.
BellahR.MadsenR.SullivanW.SwidlerA.TiptonS. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
BenhabibS. (1986). Critique, norm and utopia. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
9.
CarterJ. (2018). Women (not) troubling the family: Exploring women’s narratives of gendered family practices. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X18809752
10.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.
CraigL. (2006). Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children. Gender & Society, 20, 259–281.
13.
CrowleyJ. E. (2008). Defiant dads: Fathers’ rights activists in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
14.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2013). Modern workplaces: Consultation on the administration of Shared Parental Leave and Pay – government response. London, UK: Author.
15.
DoucetA. (1998). Interpreting mother-work: Linking ontology, theory, methodology and personal biography. Canadian Woman Studies, 18, 52–58.
16.
DoucetA. (2017). The ethics of care and the radical potential of fathers ‘home alone on leave’: Care as practice, relational ontology, and social justice. In O’BrienM.WallK. (Eds.), Fathers on leave alone and gender equality: An international comparative perspective (pp. 11–28). London, UK: Springer.
17.
DuncanS. (2015). Women’s agency in living apart together: Constraint, strategy and vulnerability. The Sociological Review, 63, 589–607.
18.
DuncanS.EdwardsR.ReynoldsT.AlldredP. (2003). Motherhood, paid work and partnering: Values and theories. Work, Employment & Society, 17, 309–330.
19.
FaludiS. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against women. London, UK: Vintage.
GabbJ. (2008). Researching intimacy in families. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
GiddensA. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
23.
GiddensA. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
HochschildA. R. (2003). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26.
HolmesM. (2004). The precariousness of choice in the new sentimental order. Current Sociology, 52, 180–200.
27.
IllouzE. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
28.
IllouzE. (2008). Saving the modern soul: Therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
IllouzE. (2012). Why love hurts: A sociological explanation. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
30.
JaggarA. M. (1983). Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Alenheld.
31.
JamiesonL. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
32.
JamiesonL. (2012). Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentrism. Sociological Research Online, 16. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2497
33.
LuptonD. (1999). Risk. London, UK: Routledge.
34.
LynchK. (2007). Love labour as a distinct and non-commodifiable form of care labour. The Sociological Review, 55, 550–570.
35.
MacanGhaillM.HaywoodC. (2007). Gender, culture and society: Contemporary femininities and masculinities. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
McKayL.DoucetA. (2010). ‘Without taking away her leave’: A Canadian case study of couples’ decisions on fathers’ use of paid leave. Fathering, 8, 300–320.
37.
O’BrienM.TwamleyK. (2017). Fathers taking leave alone in the UK – a gift exchange between mother and father? In O’BrienM.WallK. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on work–life balance and gender equality: Fathers on leave alone (pp. 163–182). London, UK: Springer.
38.
O’BrienM.WallK. (Eds.). (2017). Comparative perspectives on work–life balance and gender equality: Fathers on leave alone. London, UK: Springer.
39.
OakleyA. (1997). A brief history of gender. In OakleyA.MitchellJ. (Eds.), Who’s afraid of feminism? Seeing through the backlash (pp. 29–55). New York, NY: The New Press.
40.
PhamQ. (2013). Enduring bonds: Politics and life outside freedom as autonomy. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 38, 29–48.
41.
Ribbens McCarthyJ.EdwardsR. (2002). The individual in public and private: The significance of mothers and children. In CarlingA.DuncanS.EdwardsR. (Eds.), Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice (pp. 199–217). London, UK: Routledge.
42.
RichardsonL. (1990). Narrative and sociology. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 116–135.
43.
RuddickS. (1995). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
44.
SchoberP. (2013). Gender equality and outsourcing of domestic work, childbearing, and relationship stability among British couples. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 25–52.
45.
SchoberP. S. (2014). Parental leave and domestic work of mothers and fathers: A longitudinal study of two reforms in West Germany. Journal of Social Policy, 43, 351–372.
46.
SmartC. (2007). Personal life: New directions in sociological thinking. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
47.
ThorneB. (1987). Re-visioning women and social change: Where are the children?Gender and Society, 1, 85–109.
48.
TwamleyK. (2014). Love, marriage and intimacy among Gujarati Indians: A suitable match. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
TwamleyK.RosenR.MayallB. (2017). The (im)possibilities of dialogue across feminism and childhood scholarship and activism. Children’s Geographies, 15, 249–255.
50.
TylerI. (2007). The selfish feminist. Australian Feminist Studies, 22, 173–190.
51.
United Nations Development Programme. (2016). Human development report 2016. New York, NY: Author.
