Imagine a headline that asked: “Are conservative fathers embracing the Superdad ideal?” Picture an article about men who work part-time, have full-time careers, or stay home with the kids. Hard to imagine? That’s because we rarely talk about fathers like this. Yet when it comes to mothers, many articles — like Brad Wilcox’s recent “Supermom” piece in the Deseret News — are devoted to prescribing what women should want and how they should live. 

I come to this conversation as a deeply religious person and a member of Utah’s predominant faith tradition. For many years I was the primary caregiver of five wonderful children — and now I’m blessed with a grandchild and another on the way. From that vantage point, I’ve seen both the beauty and the challenges of raising a family in this community. I’ve also noticed how easily we can fall into rigid perspectives and an almost incessant need to prove that our way is the “right” way. I believe we’re capable of something better — more generous, more flexible, and ultimately more faithful.

Before I continue, I should clarify: the Brad Wilcox I’m referring to here is not the same Brad Wilcox who served as a professor of ancient scripture at BYU and as a counselor in the LDS Church’s Young Men’s General Presidency. This W. Bradford Wilcox is a sociologist at the University of Virginia, directs the National Marriage Project and is a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS). His writing on marriage, gender, and family frequently appears in conservative-leaning outlets, including the Deseret News, and consistently promotes gender role ideology. While influential in religious and conservative policy circles, his work has raised significant red flags in the broader academic community. Sociologist Philip Cohen has raised concerns about Wilcox publishing material that appears to have plagiarized Cohen’s own work. This has led to questions about attribution and transparency in how Wilcox presents his research. Critics argue that Wilcox often frames data selectively to reinforce his pro-marriage stance. Wilcox’s role as an anonymous peer reviewer of the controversial Regnerus study on same-sex parenting has also drawn scrutiny. The Regnerus study was widely criticized for flawed methodology and for being driven more by political ideology than sound science. Wilcox’s involvement deepened concerns that his own work often aligns with conservative political agendas rather than objective social science. Together, these critiques suggest that Wilcox’s research may be best understood as identity work cloaked in the language of sociology. Rather than neutrally exploring marriage and family life, it seems his work is intended to serve broader conservative political and religious goals.

A healthy society would give both mothers and fathers balanced opportunities to thrive at home and in public. Gender role ideology has, in practice, made women far more vulnerable than men in a myriad of ways—economically, socially, and even in terms of safety. That should be enough reason to question it. Gender roles aren’t natural inevitabilities, they’re social constructs—and we need to examine them closely if we want healthier families and societies.

We need to ask why women are endlessly surveyed about whether they work full-time, part-time, or not at all — while men are simply expected to work, unencumbered by the same scrutiny. What if we flipped the script? Since women go to the enormous effort and cost of carrying babies, birthing babies and breastfeeding them—often averaging 40 hours a week—wouldn’t it be “natural” for men to take on the rest of the work of parenting? After all, an orgasm and ejaculation hardly qualify as a comparable contribution. Imagine if society had long ago declared that because women do the hard work of pregnancy, child birth and nourishment, men must prove their parental status by being the primary caregivers. In that world, the mark of a “real man” would be mastering diaper changes and bedtime routines, handling laundry and meals, doing the dishes, keeping the home tidy, managing doctor’s appointments, and showing up at parent–teacher conferences. He’d also be responsible for keeping the kids well kept—hair brushed, clothes neat, manners polished, and behavior in check. And of course, to raise “well-rounded” children, he’d be the one overseeing homework, chauffeuring to sports practices and piano lessons, and making sure everyone has a packed lunch and a permission slip signed. 

The satirical Twitter and Facebook accounts The Man Who Has It All, takes the rhetoric and patronizing advice women have been bombarded with for decades and applies it to men. Suddenly, the absurdity of these double standards becomes glaringly obvious. What began as a clever social media experiment expanded into books that dig even deeper into gender stereotypes and their absurdity:

The Man Who Has It All: A Patronizing Parody of Self-Help Books for Women turns the language of self-help culture on its head, asking questions like: “Can you be a dad and still feel sexy?” and “Can curvy men truly be happy?” It’s humorous, scathing, and revealing — showing how ridiculous the expectations are when applied to men.

Flipping Patriarchy: Imagining a Gender-Swapped World envisions a society where men are told to smile more, juggle domestic duties flawlessly, and worry about their appearance as much as their résumés. Behind the humor lies a darker truth: language and ideology shape power, and the repetition of gendered assumptions about women’s “natural” place keeps inequality in place.

Ultimately, gender role ideology has hurt families by holding many fathers back from fully engaging as parents and by spreading most mothers too thin. When the Deseret News publishes pieces like “Are conservative women embracing the ‘Supermom’ ideal?” it shines a powerful light on the prejudices ingrained in our society.

Instead of doubling down on gender scripts, let’s trust mothers to do what works for them. BYU research shows that mothers fare best when moms can choose their preferred work situation. Let’s work to build systems that support and expect both parents to engage with and raise children. And let’s stop pretending that gender role ideology is harmless — it is one of the key engines of inequality. If we really care about families, let’s support policies and cultures that give both mothers and fathers a wider range of support. We can do better than a steady stream of arguments to justify inequality.

As usual, Brad Wilcox, the National Marriage Project, and the Deseret News have produced an article that reads more like partisan messaging than rigorous scholarship. It is essential then, to recognize that The National Marriage Project and other such think tanks and institutions are largely privately funded. As such, they often release their findings straight to the media rather than going through the peer-review process. In doing so, it sidesteps one of academia’s primary mechanisms for accountability, even while drawing on a sense of academic legitimacy to bolster its authority. Peer review is hardly foolproof, but it offers at least some check against distortion and ideological spin. It does offer an important layer of scrutiny that the National Marriage Project avoids. The strategy Wilcox and the Institute for Family Studies use is hardly unique; many think tanks and independent research institutes across the political spectrum operate in a similar way. By presenting research polished for public consumption but not vetted in scholarly circles, they are able to advance ideological goals while cloaking them in the language of objective science. In the words of Philip N. Cohen, “I can publish whatever I want, and claim myself as an expert — but unless what I write is peer reviewed, the reader runs the risk that I’m really an ophthalmologist performing heart surgery.” My closing thoughts, read with a critical eye, check the sources, and sharpen your understanding of logic and manipulation. Keep educating yourself, keep thinking, and never stop pushing your own thinking further!