Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 379–405 | Cite as

Being the “Go-To Guy”: Fatherhood, Masculinity, and the Organization of Work in Silicon Valley

  • Marianne Cooper


Based upon in-depth interviews with fathers who are employed as knowledge workers in Silicon Valley, this article argues that a newly constituted masculinity has emerged that coincides with the new way work is organized in the new economy. The article examines the relationship among this gendered subjectivity, processes of labor control, and fathering. It finds that the new masculinity functions as a key mechanism of control in high-tech workplaces that rely on identity-based forms of control and that the enactment of this new masculinity impacts the way fathers think about, experience, and manage their work and family lives.

fatherhood masculinity labor process Silicon Valley 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acker, J. (1990). “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies:ATheory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society 4:2 139–158.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, J. (1992). “Gendered institutions: From sex roles to gendered institutions.” Contemporary Sociology 21: 139–158.Google Scholar
  3. Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y. D. (1997). Understanding Gender and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M. (1998). “Gender Relations and Identity at Work: a Case Study of Masculinities and Femininities in an Advertising Agency.” Human Relations 51:8 969–1006.Google Scholar
  5. American Association of University Women. (2000). “Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age.” Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Retrieved May 28, 2000 ( Scholar
  6. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brod, H. and Kaufman, M. (1994). Theorizing Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burawoy, M. (1985). The Politics of Production. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  10. Burris, B. (1998) “Computerization of the Workplace.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 141–157.Google Scholar
  11. Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W. and Lee, J. (1985). “Towards a New Sociology of Masculinity.” Theory and Society 14: 551–604.Google Scholar
  12. Chatman, J. and O'Reilly, C. (1986). “Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71:3 492–500.Google Scholar
  13. Cockburn, C. (1988). Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-how. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collinson, D. L. (1992). Managing the Shopfloor. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Collinson, D. L. and Hearn, J. (1994). “Naming Men as Men: Implications forWork, Organization and Management.” Gender, Work and Organization 1:1 2–22.Google Scholar
  16. Collinson, D. L. and Hearn, J. (Eds.)(1996a). Men as Managers, Managers as Men. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Collinson, D. L. and Hearn, J. (1996b). Breaking the Silence on: On men, masculinities and managements. In D. L. Collinson & J. Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men (pp. 1–24). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Conlin, M. (2000). “Valley of No Dolls.” Business Week, March 6, pp. Google Scholar
  19. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Connell, R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Daly, K. J. (1998). “Reshaping fatherhood.” Pp. 384–399 in Shifting the Center, edited by S. Ferguson. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Daly, K. J. (1992). “The Fit Between Qualitative Research and the Characteristics of Families.” Qualitative Methods in Family Research, edited by J. Gilgun, K. Daly, and G. Handel. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Davies, S. (1990). Inserting gender into Burawoy's theory of the labour process. Work, Employment and Society 4: 391–406.Google Scholar
  24. Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain. USA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Faludi, S. (1999). Stiffed. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Hacker, S. (1990). “Doing it the Hard Way”: Investigations of Gender and Technology. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  27. Hochschild, A. (1989). The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  28. Hochschild, A. (1997). The Time Bind. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  29. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  30. Kendall, L. (2000). “'Oh no! I'm a Nerd!' Hegemonic Masculinity on an Online Forum.” Gender and Society 14:2 256–275.Google Scholar
  31. Kendall, L. (1999). “'The NerdWithin': Mass Media and the Negotiation of Identity Among Computer-Using Men.” Journal of Men's Studies 7:3 353.Google Scholar
  32. Knights, D. (1990). Subjectivity, power and the labour process. In D. Knights & W. Willmott, Labour process theory (pp. 297–335). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kunda, G. and Van Maanen, J. (1999). “Changing Scripts at Work: Managers and Professionals.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 561: 64–80.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, C. K. (1998). Gender and the South China Miracle. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Leidner, R. (1993). Fast Food, Fast Talk. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Levine, J. A. and Pittinsky, T. L. (1997). Working Fathers. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Mac An Ghaill, M. E. (1996). Understanding Masculinities. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mumbly, D. K. (1998). “Organizing Men: Power, Discourse, and the Social Construction of Masculinity(s) in the Workplace.” Communication Theory. 8:2 164–179.Google Scholar
  40. Perlow, L. (1995). “Putting theWork Back IntoWork /Family.” Group and Organization Management. 20:2 227–239.Google Scholar
  41. Pierce, J. L. (1996). “Reproducing Gender Relations in Large Law Firms: The Role of Emotional Labor in ParalegalWork.”Working in the Service Society, edited by C. Macdonald and C. Sirianni. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pleck, J. (1993). “Are 'Family-Supportive' Employer Policies Relevant to Men?” Men, Work, and Family, edited by J. C. Hood. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Plotnikoff, D. (1999). “Running on Valley Time.” SV Magazine, October 31, pp. 6.Google Scholar
  44. Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Turkle, S. (1988). “Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine.” Pp. 41–61 in Technology andWomen's Voices: Keeping in Touch, edited by C. Kramarae. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wright, R. (1996). “The Occupational Masculinity of Computing.” Pp. 77–96 in Masculinities in Organizations, edited by C. Cheng. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Cooper
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeley

Personalised recommendations