Dollarization in Vietnam

What is dollarization? Dollar and “ization”. Dollar here can be any dollar, or any currency, but in most cases, this word refers to United States dollar - $. And what does “ization” mean? It means the inhabitants of a country use foreign currency in parallel to or instead of the domestic currency. So, how can we know whether a country is under the state of dollarization? According to IMF, an economy is considered to experience dollarization when more than 30% of its bank deposit is dominated in dollar or foreign currencies.

If we follow the criterion above, it seems that dollarizaion has not occured in Vietnam yet. However, it is worth noting that although Vietnam has not reached the 30% roof, it has passed the 20% level. Moreover, it is common that goods in Vietnam are priced in dollar. So, it is certain that if there is nothing to be done, dollarization in Vietnam is just a matter of time.

But wait! Is dollarization good or bad? If it is good, then it is pointless to get worried. Like everything and phenomenons on Earth, dollarization is good, and bad also. In a country where inflation becomes a big problem like Vietnam, dollarization is good way to hedge from devaluation of the domestic currency and to buy goods in unofficial markets. If a country experience 100% dollarization, which means it does not have its own currency, there is no need to worry about monetary policy. The only concern will be fiscal policy alone. Dollarization helps banks and enterprises integrate with the world better. With so much dollar in deposit account, there is no need for bank to borrow from its foreign counterparts. Dollarization also lowers the transition cost of converting dollar into domestic currency and vice versa. However, the list of arguements against dollarization is long also. First of all, dollarized country looses an important adjustment mechanism, especially in case of external shocks. Severe swings in output and employment due to asymmetric shocks can only be avoided through domestic adjustment mechaninsm, particularly wage flexibility and fiscal policy. Futher, central bank in such countries looses the lender of last resort function. In other words, money supply becomes in elastic, systemic risk in financial sector increases. And if there is a foreign currency existing parallel with the domestic one, for example - USD, the country will financial depend heavily on America. And it will soon lead to political and social dependence. Dollarization is one of the results caused by impossible trinity: a country can only choose to purchase 2 out of 3 policies: a independent monetary policy - a complete control of inflation, exchange rate of its cunrrency, and management of capital flow. Depending on each country with its own characteristics, one can choose to let its currency float while others want to control inflation. It means, dollarization is not always bad. However, if our country has, from the beginning, decided not to depend on a specific foreign currency, dollarization will do more harm than good.

The next question comes to us: if dollarization is bad, to our economy, why is it happening? Before we answer that question, let’s find out the source of the dollars we are using now.

The main source of foreign currency comes from export sector. In 2010, Vietnam collected over $72 billion through export. Bear in mind that GDP of Vietnam is just a little bit over $100 billion to understand how big is that figure. However, we spent nearly $85 billion importing. That resulted in approximately $13billion of trade deficit. Therefore, in Vietnam, export is not a good way to earn dollars, although exporters always hold in hand large amount of dollar in cash and deposit. But there is one thing worth considering about “export”. Though the legal and official exporters do not help much, smugglers can really effect the market. The money they have through smuggling is in cash, and flowing to market quickly and uncontrollably.

It is lucky for Vietnam that we are not in the mercantilism era. The trade deficit can be eased with other sources. One of them is foreign investment. There are many kinds of investment, but mainly there are 3 kinds: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) and economic aid such as ODA. In 2010, Vietnam ranked 12th in the list of attracting FDI among countries (about $18 billion). FPI is much lesser, only $1 billion. ODA is promised at the figure of more than $8 billion. Enough to erase the gap between export and import. Oversea remittance can also be an important source. And finally, tourism. There were more than 5 miilion of foreign tourists coming to Vietnam last year. Assuming that each tourist spent $1000, we would have $5 billion totally.

Now that we have found out all the main sources of dollar in the market, we can answer the question why dollarization is existing.

One of the most worth noting characteristics of our economy is its instability and inflation, especially in recent years. Afraid of inflation, many people have chosen to hold USD instead of VND. Inflation has caused record high interest rate of VND while interest rate for USD still remains low. That has led to bigger proportion in borrowing and lending USD. This action is quite comprehensible, though it worsens the situation.

Secondly, Vietnamese people still uses cash in daily trading. This has helped USD to get deepened into the economy because government can hardly control that. Moreover, the most valuable note of VND is 500k VND while $100 is worth more than 2 million. Therefore, many people prefer using USD as a way to trade assets with big value.

It’s only a problem if we have a solution. It is true that there are solutions for the situation. But I am not about to suggest some. In this last part, let’s have a look at an event happening in the current days. 6 moths ago, VND depreciated sharply. At that time, it was predicted by many investors, including me, that sooner or later, 1 USD would equal 25k VND at the end of 2011. However, now, middle of June, 1 USD is only equal to 20.100 VND, and it does not seem to reach the target. What had happened? A quick action from government and central bank has reversed the situation. Money exchange agencies are under strict management. Required reserve of USD is raised up, which leads to lower deposit interest rate and higher lending rate in USD. Bank system attract dollar from the market. Commonly, such actions will result in more appreciation of USD because supply in market does not match demand. However, it is VND whose value rises against USD. It is true that supply has declined. But demand for USD has decreased too, at a greater pace than supply’s. Though these actions will not be effective in the long-run, they have somehow illustrated the power of government. The Government can fix everything. The only question is: Do they want to do that?

Kz

June, 2011.

Charity..

Một trong những bước tiến hóa tích cực của con người chính là lòng hảo tâm. Đã từ lâu, chúng ta, những con người bình thường, thường có xu hướng đóng góp một chút gì đó để giúp những người khó khăn hơn chúng ta. Có nhiều cách để đóng góp: bỏ thời gian để lao động công ích hoặc đơn giản, đóng góp vào các tổ chức từ thiện. Tuy nhiên, nếu như phải chọn lựa giữa các tổ chức, lời khuyên đưa ra là hãy tránh xa những tổ chức thiện lớn và có tổ chức. Tại sao lại như vậy? Liệu điều này có hơi ngược ngạo, vì chính những tổ chức này có uy tín và hoạt động hiệu quả hơn?

Điểm mạnh của những tổ chức từ thiện lớn cũng chính là điểm yếu của nó. Nó yếu, vì nó to lớn. Điều này cũng giống như khi nghĩ về chính phủ. Big Government thường đi kèm với corrupt và thiếu hiệu quả.

Một điều có thể dễ dàng thấy được là tổ chức từ càng lớn, nó càng cần nhiều người điều hành, và tổ chức từ thiện cũng vậy. Tiếc thay, những người nay cũng cần được phải trả lương. Tiền lương của họ chỉ có thể đến từ tiền đóng góp. 1 phần tiền từ thiện đã bị lãng phí vì mục đích như vậy.

Đã có bao giờ chúng ta tự hỏi làm sao chúng ta biết được đến các tổ chức từ thiện lớn? Thông qua bạn bè, đi đường gặp, hay thông qua báo chí và các phương tiện truyền thông? Có thể chúng ta biết được bằng cả 3 con đường, nhưng liệu chúng ta sẽ chọn tổ chức nào? Đa phần mọi người đều chọn những sản phẩm xuất hiện trên những phương tiện truyền thống, vì đó là dấu hiệu đảm bảo cho 1 sự vững mạnh đằng sau. Không chỉ có dầu gội, xe hơi, … ngay cả các tổ chức từ thiện cũng thường xuyên marketing để kêu gọi thêm những đóng góp. Và hãy nhớ đến quy tắc đầu của kinh tế: “There is no free lunch”. Tuy là mang danh nghĩa từ thiện, nhưng các hoạt động marketing vẫn tốn 1 khoản tiền nhất định. Và dĩ nhiên, chi phí này được lấy từ tiền từ thiện. Dùng tiền từ thiện để kêu gọi thêm tiền.

Cũng giống như chính phủ, khi tổ chức từ thiện càng lớn, càng nhiều khả năng xảy ra những gian lận. Điều này xảy ra không chỉ ở Việt Nam mà còn ở các nước tiến bộ khác, đặc biệt là ở những tổ chức trực thuộc nhà thuộc.

Có 1 điều mọi người thường quên mất, đó là tổ chức từ thiện cũng chính là 1 tổ chức kinh doanh. Các tổ chức này có những văn phòng, những trung tâm, những “tình nguyện viên”, những nhân viên luôn tìm cách thuyết phục chúng ta về 1 vấn nạn nào đó mà thế giới đang vướng phải. Ung thư, AIDS, ấm lên toàn cầu, nghèo đói, thảm họa... Quá nhiều thảm họa trong thế giới, quá nhiều người cần giúp. Nhưng liệu tất cả những vấn nạn đó đã đủ nghiêm trọng và cấp thiết để chúng ta phải đóng góp? 1 trong những ví dụ điển hình nhất là những lời kêu gọi về sự ấm lên toàn cầu - global warming. Đến nay, vẫn chưa có những bằng chứng khoa học đủ thuyết phục về vấn đề này. [http://karlzed.blogspot.com/2011/03/earth-hour-are-you-serious.html] Nhưng đã có rất nhiều các tổ chức xuất hiện để quyên góp tiền cho hiện tượng này. Nhớ rằng khi chúng ta ngừng quyên góp, hàng ngàn việc làm sẽ bị mất. Điều này thật đáng buồn, nhưng đó không phải là trách nhiệm của chúng ta. Rất nhiều các tổ chức từ thiện có những mục đích không rõ ràng. Tốt hơn là hãy tránh xa.

Và cuối cùng, những người có khả năng quyên góp thật sự đang làm việc. Bill Gates và Warren Buffet làm công việc từ thiện tốt hơn chúng ta 1000 lần. Họ tìm ra chính xác những vấn đề cần sự đóng góp, quyên góp hiệu quả, và đầu tư số tiền tồn đọng 1 cách hợp lí. Những đồng tiền lẻ của chúng ta sẽ không là gì khi đặt cạnh bên hàng tỷ USD của họ. Vì thế, hãy để họgiải quyết những vấn đề to lớn, chúng ta có thể tạo ra những sự khác biệt to lớn đối với những người mà Bill Gates chưa từng nghe đến tên.

Không đóng góp vào những tổ chức từ thiện lớn không đồng nghĩa chúng ta không đóng góp gì cả. Vẫn còn nhiều cách để giúp ích cho xã hội. Hãy tự mình làm từ thiện, vì điều đó có thể giúp chúng ta có được 2 lợi thế:

1/ Đóng góp trực tiếp vào nơi đang cần giúp đỡ. Chúng ta biết được chính xác những đồng tiền chúng ta làm ra được chảy vào đâu và có tác dụng thế nào. Chúng ta được gặp mặt những người chúng ta giúp đỡ, chúng ta giải quyết 1 vấn đề cấp bách, chúng ta biến thành một anh hùng từ một người bình thường.

2/ Hành động ngay hôm nay. Tìm tờ báo, và xem trên mục cần giúp đỡ. Đó là những trường hợp mà một món tiền nhỏ có thề tạo nên những thay đổi to lớn.

Và khi làm từ thiện 1 mình, hãy đóng góp 1 cách vô danh, vì 2 lí do. 1/ Từ thiện. Khi nói tới từ thiện, chúng ta không mong chờ được người khác cảm tạ, hay tôn vinh. Hãy đóng góp chỉ vì muốn thấy 1 xã hội tốt hơn. 2/ Vấn đề luật pháp. Khi tư mình đóng góp, vì không phải là một người chuyên nghiệp trong vấn đề này, chúng ta sẽ ít nhiều có khả năng rơi vào các vấn đề nguy hiểm về mặt luật pháp và xã hội. Vì thế, tốt hơn là hãy làm việc một cách vô danh.

Và khi thậm chí chúng ta không trực tiếp đóng góp gì, kể cả 1 mình hoặc vào các tổ chức từ thiện lớn, cũng đừng vì thế mà cảm thấy tội lỗi. Khi chúng ta đóng thuế, chúng ta đã đồng thời đóng góp vào các tổ chức từ thiện lớn của chính phủ. Chỉ có điều, lần này, hãy tự mình làm từ thiện.

Let Bill Gates save the world, we can save a life.

kz

June, 2011

special thanks to Freakonomics

Daddies' Gendered Journeys

Daddies' Gendered Journeys

http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/

             If there is one thing that can span across barriers of time and space, it is societies’ conscious attitude towards gender roles and what it means to be man and woman. For the longest time there existed an unspoken understanding that the fairer sex was deemed mothers and housekeepers while their husbands held responsibility for protection and financial security. Western cultures were pioneers in challenging these social norms. The 20^th century and women rights movement proved to be critical in realigning these gender roles within society, and particularly within the family. Parenting, a job traditionally considered for women, has gradually been taken up by men alike. Due to different government policies and traditions, European fathers are more likely to embrace the joys at home than their American counterparts.

            Looking back at thousands of years, in nearly every culture across the world, the traditional image of a family is that of the man at the forefront and center, with his wife in the background. Known as patriarchy – a system in which the male is the primary figure, the “undisputed heads and masters of households” over their wife and children by “law and custom” – society credited the husband as the breadwinner and the wife as the caregiver (Smith 4). Historically, the idea of a working mother started in a farm based economy. Women worked alongside their husbands, helped with farming and tending cattle, all the while performing household tasks like cooking and sewing. Although mothering and production went hand in hand, they did not assert control over what was produced (Smith 5). As society switched to an industry based economy, the roles of man and woman changed within the family. Until then, all family members contributed to the home economy; now the men had to work as breadwinner outside the home while the women were restricted to the home and to provide motherly care for the children and tend to household duties. The “ideology of breadwinning” and providing the family a sense of security gave men a sense of duty and dignity, all the while shaping “their sense of self, manhood, and gender” (Smith 9). In a way, breadwinning was a sign of masculinity.

            The 19^th century saw the birth of feminism, the change in attitudes towards women’s rights, and the idea of a “new father”. The Great Depression in the 1930s affected both the U.S. and Europe. Unemployment led to fathers being at home more, and society thus started promoting the role of the father as both breadwinner and caregiver to his children (Smith 10). Even so, this did little to change tradition. On the other hand, more and more women found jobs. World War II only reinforced women’s labor. With men going off to war, it was up to the women to work in factories to support the war effort. When the war was over, they were reluctant to resign their new roles and go back to traditional pre-war society. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s fought against constraints of traditional gender roles, and sought equality in both the workforce and at home. No longer was it solely up to the man to support the family; the burden was shared in two. Marriage now meant equitable sharing of household responsibilities as well as economic support. These implications were increasingly accepted by women, if not so readily by men.

            As revolutionary as the feminist movement was, its purpose never was to reverse traditional arrangements. In fact, its forefront demand was to put an end to discrimination at work and to split housework and childcare evenly between spouses (Smith 19). Once women were given more freedom and allowed to push boundaries beyond the home, the odds were more favorable to them. It was modern to pursue a career, but it was also customary for them to be a mother. For men, going from fifty-fifty responsibility to female breadwinner and male caregivers, however, was a long shot. Not only was it a long shot, it was also very critically looked upon. Some were unable or unwilling to let go of being “lord and master” of his household and refused change (Smith 20). The difference between generations was also significant. Older generations, especially those who served during WWII, were less likely than their sons to accept this new shift in gender roles. In their mind, they had defined the true meaning of masculinity, and thus by staying at home, one was less than a man. It was much harder for men to overcome these psychological obstacles. Even so, favorable or not, by the 90s, it was not abnormal to hear the term stay-at-home dad. The image of a nurturing father had become real at last.

            In traditional or modern societies, childbearing has always been influenced by economic factors. Traditionally, men were employed in the labor market and earned a living to provide for their families, while women were dedicated to domestic work and care activities. Naturally, children grew up under the eye and guidance of the mother. Problems arose when transformations that started taking place in the mid-60s and the “pursuit of personal fulfillment through work” conflicted with “cultural milieu” and family values (Lutz 111).

            Nowadays, the birth of the first child and the responsibilities that come with it can lead to adjustments and re-definitions of life patterns, and affects both parents, whereas in previous centuries, it undisputedly fell into the mother’s hands. In a study carried out by Giovannini and Ventimiglia in 1994 comparing four European countries, France, Italy, Denmark, and Ireland, about a third of all respondents said their “life habits had changed very much” after the birth of the first child, and 71% reported that the way they organize their days was changed in some way. The difference in responses lay in the effect on the respondents’ professional tasks. Of Italian parents, only 26% reported no change in effects. The numbers in Ireland, France and Denmark were 37%, 62% and 51% respectively. Tradition still plays a big part in women embracing the mothering role as seen in Italy and Ireland. The greater availability of public childcare and more progressive views could explain the relatively lower effect on professional tasks in France and Denmark (Fine-Davis 99-100). In 2001, the employment ratio for male and female in the U.S. was 80.6% and 67.9%. This is similar to the Netherlands (82.4% and 63.7%), Sweden (74.8% and 71.0%) and the UK (77.8% and 64.6%). There is a larger difference in employment ratio in Germany (72.8% and 57.9%) and even larger in Italy (67.5% and 39.6%) (Daly 75). The birth of a child increases family burdens, and while women who face these burdens in Nordic countries are “balanced by compensatory measures,” the same thing cannot be said in Mediterranean countries (Lutz 114). Not only are women there influenced by social norms, they are also left without adequate support and face a decision of whether to work part-time or become a full-time mother. Other factors also affect families whose parents both work, including working hours, work pressure, and family policies. This has left parents with a dilemma of work-life balance.

            The ease and difficulty in reconciling work and family varies across different countries. In the same study carried out in four European countries, 56.8% parents said it was easy to combine work and family life while 43.2% said it was difficult (Fine-Davis 179). One factor in determining the difficulty was the amount of help spouses got with domestic and childcare responsibilities. The more help the woman got from her husband, the easier it was to manage. In the case both parents were busy, the child was often left in the care of schools, childcare centers, or relatives. Although 88% of Danish children were being looked after in day care centers, most Irish or Italian children were looked after by relatives (especially grandparents), partly due to less developed public provision. In Ireland and Italy, 22% and 23.5% of mothers who worked part-time made an effort to care for the children (Fine-Davis 228). The biggest issue factor that contributes greatly to how difficult it was to combine work and family, however, is time. The average number of hours worked per week is 42 hours for men and 32 hours for women. A little over 20% of couples had both partners working fulltime. Of the women interviewed, 27% wanted to work part-time, most claiming they wanted to spend more time with their children. Likewise, 13% of men wanted to work part-time, with a little over half stating they would like more time for children. One strategy to a work-family balance is working part-time, but only 14% of couples adopted the full-time husband/part-time wife pattern. Instead, 24% of couples opted to have the husband employed and the wife to stay at home (Fine-Davis 184). In short, European women want the best of both worlds; they want to lead a professional life while maintaining the role of a mother. Scandinavian countries assist the women’s entry into the labor force by introducing favorable government policies and services aimed at lightening family responsibilities. Southern European countries, however, relied on family ties and the government provided less help and support. Thus, the workload proved too much and women either left the work force to concentrate solely on caring for the family or put off giving birth altogether.

            One positive effect of the work-family dilemma is the emerging idea and growing popularity of a stay-at-home dad. In both the U.S. and Europe, more and more men are going against social norms and reversing the breadwinner model. They prove to society how “family roles as caregivers and breadwinners can be negotiated instead of imposed by gender expectations” (Smith 171). Whoever said men could not manage to take care of children? Truth is, these classic gender roles are interchangeable; men can look after the young ones and women can support their families. This rejection of traditional ways is evident in one couple, Chien and Ashley Nguyen of Kansas City, Missouri. Chien was born in Vietnam in 1975. His parents fled the country and settled in Kansas City with help from the Catholic community. Raised in a Catholic Vietnamese household, Chien was influenced by religious and cultural beliefs. He was a scientist in pharmaceutical product development, but without a graduate degree, it was unlikely he would advance much further. His wife Ashley, on the other hand, was a doctor in her third year of residency when they became parents. Instead of taking the dual-income route and placing their two daughters in day care, Chien opted to stay at home while Ashley pursued her career. He took up housework and cooking, as well as various child-care tasks, and is content with his role. The fence that Ashley and Chien had to straddle was not only gender and psychological, but also cultural and religious. When faced with Chien’s fence, other U.S. and European immigrants alike must make the choice of whether to ‘climb over’ old values, customs, and practices to survive or cling on to traditional ways that would hold them back. No longer are men and women bound to certain roles; the 21^st century has seen a fusion of old and new family forms: “egalitarian gender values” onto “traditional familialism” (Smith 80-85).   

            Contrary to popular belief that only women can take care of children, men make good fathers and often find fatherhood to be very rewarding. Caryn Medved, an associate professor of communications at Baruch College in New York, has remarked how many fathers talked about how rewarding and self-satisfying the experience can be. “I’ve had men crying when I interviewed them,” Medved says. “I remember a man in Utah who talked about the ability to be a father in a way his father couldn’t, and the joy he felt in seeing his children grow.” (Stout). Fatherhood triggers a “broad and deep emotional and behavioral changes in fathers, strengthening their attachment to children and their ability to care for them” (Smith 172). Michelle Mullen, a North Carolina breadwinner whose husband, PJ, stays at home, remarks, “A man who changes diapers is just sexy.” At times PJ might have doubts about being a hands-on dad but at the end of the day he is convinced this is the right choice for his family.  “You do wonder about your self-worth, because you’re not earning a paycheck,” he says, “But my wife is the only one who matters. As long as she can look at me and realize that I’m doing the best for our family, it doesn’t matter that some random guy thinks I’m less of a man.” (Stout).

            The question that now arises is that, if society has provided a gateway for men to overcome traditional norms, why are American dads less likely than their European counterparts to embrace the idea of staying at home? The answer lies in family values and government policies. Americans are aware of, if not astonished at, the depth of generous benefits and services provided for the Europeans. The “European style” is defined by universal health care, paid parental leave, inexpensive to free university education, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits…to name a few. In numbers, in 2009, the U.S. devoted 16% of its $14 trillion economy (about $7300/person) to workfare support, while Europe contributed 27% of its $17 trillion economy (about $9200/person). The 25% more that Europe spends per capita makes a huge difference, and enables Europe to surpass the U.S. in most quality of life categories (Hill 74). Unlike the U.S., when Europe says it supports “family values”, it means it in actual practice. With an aim to keeping every citizen healthy and working, it has geared its government policies to reflect the European conception of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. By spending “three times more per capita on families than does the U.S.,” Europe exercised a system that puts family in the forefront and center (Hill 75).

            Whereas Europe provides paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers in the event of child birth or sick child, the U.S. guarantees nothing. U.S. companies offering paid maternity leave dropped from 27% in 1998 to 16% in 2008. Europe recognizes the importance of raising and caring for a child, especially in the early stages of the baby’s life, and its value for the entire society, and thus provides the necessary help and support to make both parents feel at ease. In Sweden, mothers receive 1.3 years off and two-thirds of their wages during the time off, while also guaranteed the same position when she returns to work. In Norway, the mother gets up to a year off, 80% of their salary, and a secured job position to return to. In the baby’s second year, the father is offered benefits to stay home. While other countries are a bit less generous, benefits are still substantial (Hill 76). On top of the paid leave, European nations pay parents a monthly check for the first eighteen years of the child’s. German and Dutch governments are most generous, paying about $200 per child per month. Called kiddie stipends, these help pay for the child’s needs and development. American families, on the other hand, are left to support themselves. Sadly, the U.S. identifies welfare with socialism instead of support for working families and family values (Hill 79).

            Family values are also seen in the amount of time Europeans spend with their families. Americans work on average 1976 hours per year, while the Germans and French work 400 hours less, giving them about an extra seven weeks off. Even the British, deemed hard workers in Europe, work 200 fewer hours, or twenty five days off. These extra days are a combination of shorter workweeks, more vacation time, holidays or more sick leaves. This makes it easier for Europeans to balance their professional and private lives. Parents are able to tend to a sick child, an ailing family member or even take time off for the sake of enjoying life without having to fear job loss. Given the flexibility in career breaks, it is no wonder Europeans are credited with living a life of leisure. That is not to say they have lost their edge or competiveness in the workforce; they are just as productive as Americans (Hill 80).

             Childbearing is equally important as having a career. It takes up money, time, and effort on the parents’ part. The transition from being breadwinner to househusband still has an effect on the husband’s ego. Despite the feeling that it might be a blow to one’s masculinity, every father desires to spend more time with his kids. By acknowledging the significance of having a child not only on the family, but also on society, European nations have gone out of their way to make the work-life balance as comfortable as possible. Inarguably, Europeans receive more benefits and support from the government than American do. It is this mindset, and generous assistance from the government, that parents are more likely to stay-at-home with their children, whether it is part-time or full-time.

            Gone are the days a father would be looked down upon when he shows affection and caring for his wife and family. Society has changed drastically in recent decades, and the definitive line between what it means to be man and woman has indeed blurred, and the roles have become interchangeable. The gendered journey a man has to take is not without its difficulties and obstacles. Whether it is traditions, customs, or psychological reasons that he has to overcome, in the end, fatherhood is worth it. Between the U.S. and Europe alone, European fathers are more likely to become a full-time Mr. Mom than their American counterparts. Tradition, family values, and government assistance play a major role in their decision. Fathers will find it reassuring to know not only their wives, but also society have got their backs, and more will be embracing the joys of parenthood. If moms can actively engage in the workforce, dads, too, can win children’s hearts at home.

Works Cited

Daly, Mary, and Katherine Rake. Gender and the Welfare State: Care, Work and Welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge: Polity, 2003.

Lutz, Wolfgang, Rudolph Richter, and Chris Wilson, eds. "Family Forms and the Youth Generation in an Enlarged Nation." The New Generations of Europeans: Demography and Families in the Enlarged European Union.London: Earthscan, 2006. 101-84.

Fine-Davis, Margret. Fathers and Mothers: Dilemmas of the Work-life Balance : a Comparative Study in Four European Countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004. Print.

Hill, Steven. "Family Values, European Style." Europe's Promise: Why The European Way Is The Best Hope in an Insecure Age. Berkeley: University of California, 2010. 72-92.

Smith, Jeremy Adam. The Daddy Shift: How Stay-at-home Dads, Breadwinning Moms, and Shared Parenting Are Transforming the American Family.Boston: Beacon, 2009.

Stout, Hilary. "Real-Life Stay-at-Home Husbands.” msn.com. MSNBC. 9 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 May 2011. <http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/just-dreaming/article.aspx?cp-documentid=25399725>

http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/

please post your comments in this: http://buinadine.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/daddies-gendered-journeys/