Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this article is to critically evaluate the concept of caring masculinity/ies, a concept that has gained traction in critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM) since the publication of Karla Elliott’s 2016 article. Utilizing a rapid literature review, this study analyses 54 peer-reviewed papers published in English-language journals since 2016. The paper begins with an overview of the early development of caring masculinities, tracing its theoretical roots and initial applications. It subsequently categorizes the dominant ways in which the concept has been applied, focusing on typologies, caring practices, and processes of change, as well as on criticism of the concept. The paper then discusses key critical junctions and limitations, particularly on the conflation of attitudes with practice. It finally calls for a more coherent focus on caring practices that emphasizes the importance of intersectionality, the initial feminist promise of the concept and greater attention to the structural barriers that may enable, shape or restrict men’s caring.

Keywords

caring masculinity caring masculinities theory protective masculinity hybrid masculinities

Introduction

Since Karla Elliott’s (2016) theoretical paper was published in Men and Masculinities there has been a rapid growth in the popularity of the concept of caring masculinity/ies (hereafter CM). A search of both terms in the papers published in three leading men and masculinities journals, reveals that this particular notion seems to be the third most popular theoretical framework (after Connell’s hegemonic masculinity [1995] and Anderson’s inclusive masculinity [2009] frameworks) amongst scholars in the field. The term has appeared 530 times in Men and Masculinities (and 252 since 2016), 444 (135) times in the Journal of Men’s Studies, and 161 (133) times in papers published in NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, which constitute the three main scholarly journals focussed on the interdisciplinary research on men and masculinities. In short, it is one of the dominant frameworks within critical men and masculinities studies (CSMM) today.

This paper critically engages with and aims to potentially revise the understandings and applications of the concept of CM that dominate in the contemporary literature within CSMM. Whilst there have already been some critiques of CM (Hunter et al. 2017; Hytti et al. 2024), these have mostly focused on explaining observed changes within a specific context (mostly fatherhood and friendship) using the framework of hegemonic masculinity. Instead, we suggest, given the evidence of changing practices outlined later, that it is important to theoretically refine the idea and to draw boundaries around how it should be applied rather than reject the focus on men’s caring as an important issue for CSMM scholars. Due to its growing popularity and relatively low level of theoretical development in subsequent studies, a significant number of scholars that utilize the concept in their studies tend toward treating it as a character type. The latter leads to minimising the roots of the concept itself, which usually strips it of its intentional emancipatory character and leads to disregarding the issues of power relations and social change, which we argue are at the core of its initial theoretical grounding. Instead, much as with the misapplication of hegemonic masculinity (see Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), these issues tend to be replaced by the analyses of individual practices of certain men. In order to contribute to the development of the concept and to strengthen its theoretical robustness, in this paper, we provide an overview of the concept’s theoretical progression right up until the publication of Elliott’s paper (2016), which is the most comprehensive theoretical work on the concept of CM. To examine how the concept of caring masculinities (CM) has been applied since 2016, we conducted a rapid review of peer-reviewed papers published in Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and ProQuest, focusing on English-language articles from January 2016 to May 2024. We used the keywords “caring masculinity” and “caring masculinities,” resulting in 483 papers, which were narrowed down to 126 after removing duplicates and non-relevant entries. After screening abstracts and conclusions, we identified 54 papers with substantial theoretical discussions on CM, and our findings are presented in a narrative form based on a qualitative analysis. Subsequently, we critically analyze the most common applications of the concept (divided into types of masculinities, masculine practices, and processes of change). Finally, we identify critical junctions and propose a more coherent theoretical framework with a focus on criticisms of typologies in CSMM, greater focus on power relations, social change in terms of gender roles and performances, as well as on structures instead of individual attitudes.

Development of the Concept

The term “caring masculinity” has been around since the early 2000s. Whilst certain scholars (Elliott 2016; Scambor et al. 2024) suggest that the term was initially used and developed by a team of German researchers in their project on gender equality in organizations (Gärtner et al. 2006), other scholars trace alternative development trajectories. Roberts and Prattes (2023) claim that the concept originates in Anglo-Saxon academia, suggesting that before its application by German researchers, it was already introduced by Boyle (2002) and appeared later in the writings of Heath (2003). Nevertheless, it was in 2003 in their book about men, masculinities, and care, that Norwegian researchers Holter and Lindquist (2003) used the notion that is the focal point of our analysis. The book itself was an English translation of a Norwegian report on men engaged in care work (“Kan Menn?”) as a means of attaining greater equality in the labor market. The concept was originally based on the assumption that men, to the same extent as women, are both capable of caring for and increasingly willing to do so.

Given that the term appeared in the literature at approximately the same time in different parts of the world we suggest that all the authors can be seen as witnessing shifting trends in parents’ caring practices and coined the ideas behind the term relatively independently. That said, none provided a sufficient definition of CM, limiting themselves to putting the words caring and masculinity together; CM was thus less a distinct theoretical concept and more a description of caring activities done by men. The first attempts at substantial theorizing of the concept can be traced to Niall Hanlon who published several works (2009, 2012a, 2012b) where, based on his research on caring practices characteristic of certain groups of Irish men, concluded that in specific institutional settings, men may develop skills that allow them to perform caring. The latter, in turn, helps to increase the overall level of gender equality in various segments of society, from intimate relationships to institutional politics. Importantly, since the publication of Hanlon’s book (2012a), both arguments have been consistently developed, and CM has gained increasing popularity among social scientists concerned with men and their role and involvement in gender equality (Scambor et al. 2014).

The term was ultimately popularised by Elliott, who developed it in the context of feminist and CSMM debates (2016, 2020). Her definition is based on the rejection of hegemonic, dominant forms of masculinity and monolithic gender roles, defined through clear power relations and vertical gender hierarchy. Instead, in CM there is “(...) integration of values derived from the sphere of care, such as positive emotions, interdependence and relationality” and the adoption of this type of gender identity becomes “(...) a critical form of men’s commitment to equality gender because performing care work requires men to oppose hegemonic masculinity and to adopt values and characteristics of care that are contrary to hegemonic masculinity” (2016: 15).

An important element of CM is also its emotional dimension (Wojnicka and Kubisa 2024). As Elliott argues with CM, the division into masculine and non-masculine emotions is increasingly rejected. Secondly, it suggests men are encouraged to recognize, appreciate and express the entire spectrum of emotions they experience not only as it is better for their mental health but as Hanlon writes, “(...) it is impossible to deconstruct male power without reconstructing men’ emotional life” (2012: 66). Elliott (2020) similarly argues that there has been a fundamental rejection of emotional stoicism and so-called “closed narratives”, whereby men refuse to discuss their feelings for fear of ridicule, amongst young men. As she subsequently argues, this marks a generational shift in how men care. There is also evidence in the interviews that the men express a real desire for emotional closeness with their partners. Others have also documented increasing emotional openness (see de Boise and Hearn 2017) and a greater sense of vulnerability and care in (heterosexual) relationships. These, taken together, are seen as the emergence of a new type of man, which develops as a consequence of new social formations, but this represents a qualitatively different type to that of their father’s generation. CM thus consists of three basic elements: deep and long-term involvement in caring activities, appreciation, and expression of a wide range of emotions, as well as rejection of male power and domination and, consequently, giving up the use of male privileges. When it comes to care itself, it is understood broadly and is not limited to caring for children or the sick or elderly, but also includes self-care and care for society in general.

The development of the concept and a focus on it is part of a larger trend that takes aim at the apparent “one-sidedness” of Connell’s hegemonic masculinity, which focuses largely on masculinity as defined in terms of disparities of economic and political power. Connell has been criticized for focusing largely on masculinities in terms of power (Elliott and Roberts 2023) and neglecting the importance of fatherhood (Ruby and Scholz 2018). Whilst in Masculinities (Connell 1995) she highlights many contradictions between ideal and practice in men’s everyday lives through the use of case studies, despite repeated protestations (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005), hegemonic masculinity has often been used to refer to a type of dominant, “traditionally macho” personality type.

The second reason why the continued relevance of hegemonic masculinity has been challenged is that, as a result of feminist interventions, there is an argument that ideals around masculinity (largely defined in relation to cis white men in the global North) have fundamentally changed. As such, in this respect, CM has developed at a similar time to alternative, more optimistic visions of the supposed pessimism of hegemonic masculinity, such as “inclusive masculinity” (Anderson 2012). According to this perspective, whilst Connell’s theory was able to explain masculinity as a social formation in previous decades it no longer does so. Elliott and Roberts (2023), however, argue that CM offers a third way between the unbridled optimism of inclusive masculinity and the structural pessimism of hegemonic masculinity. In this respect, CM attempts to explain a new form of masculinity, taking its departure from hegemonic masculinity but foregrounding changes in the current hegemonic gender configuration, particularly amongst young men. Unlike inclusive masculinity, however, in Elliott’s (2020) later formulation, it adopts the principle of intersectionality in Connell’s model (this was not directly stated by Connell, but was later incorporated by other scholars e.g., Christensen and Jensen (2014)) but also rejects the idea that progressive social changes have come largely from the middle-class affluent men who constitute a hegemonic group. Instead, adopting hooks (2004), Elliott argues that changes have emanated from the “periphery” (gay men, men of colour, working class men) and have been adopted by the “centre”. Marginalized groups have thus, according to CM, had a fundamental impact on the way in which those affluent and socially privileged groups of men think about their caring practices.

Applications

Our review shows that CM has been applied in a number of different ways. However, the literature has split between focusing on CM as a type of person and focusing on men’s care practices. Moreover, some papers reflect on the concept in the context of social process, and finally, the theory has been critiqued.

Types of Men/Masculinities

In the first instance, the concept has been applied as a means of theorizing a new type of masculinity. As noted, a number of authors see the concept as superseding hegemonic masculinity because they argue hegemonic masculinity cannot explain the existence and popularity of men who care (Roberts and Elliott 2020). Much as with inclusive masculinity, what emerges from this literature is a focus on the idea of a new type of man who does not fit within the hegemonic/non-hegemonic paradigm but maintains a distinction between “traditional” and “newer” forms. Here, the focus is more commonly on caring in terms of attitudes toward self, friends, and partners (Brüggemann 2020; Elliott 2019; Firdaus et al. 2023; Liu and Lin 2023; Mitchell et al. 2019; Nasser El-Dine 2018; Nissen 2017) and in the construction of different types of masculinity across various media (Allan 2022; Arauna et al. 2018; Arcimowicz 2020; Hookway and Cruickshank 2022; Roy and Ayalon 2023; Scheibling 2020; Teinemaa and Unt 2022). In the first instance, as with hegemonic masculinity, this is mostly driven by qualitative interview-based studies which reveal positive attitudes to caring amongst men who occupy socially privileged groups, revealing a desire for a more compassionate and “open” form of interaction with both other men and women (Elliott 2019). CM as a specific form of gender performance is also analyzed in a study on rural men and their experiences, where, combined with the emotional capital concept, is being perceived as an asset in the dating market (Liu and Lin 2023). What might be characterized as a preference for more “sensitive” guys is thus seen as an asset that men adopt, much as with the distinction in inclusive masculinity between traditional and inclusive forms, in contrast to other more “traditional” men.

In media analyses, based on data from a project on dad bloggers, Scheibling shows that CM is being constructed by the bloggers who utilize CM to develop a more progressive male performance, also by adopting a pro-feminist perspective (2018). Scheibling’s (2020) discussion of “dad bloggers” states how the men adopt CM in a manner akin to a jacket that one can put on or take off, suggesting that they perform a specific type of identity, which is characterized by its distance from hegemonic forms. Similarly, Arcimowicz (2020) undertakes a similar process by analyzing media representations of footballer Robert Lewandoski to understand how the footballer’s image is crafted partially through his caring role in his family life.

Caring Practices

Whilst much of the literature has, to varying degrees, emphasized CM in terms of a type of person embodied in a series of attitudes, others have focused more on what men do rather than say in terms of their caring practices. Practices of care are usually defined as CM in the context of fatherhood and specifically men not only expressing a greater willingness to be involved in taking care of their children (Allan et al. 2020; Cannito and Mercuri 2022; Graf and Wojnicka 2023; Joshi 2021; Martinez-Pastor et al. 2024; Villa-Palomino 2024; Yoon and Park 2024) but also in terms of engaging in childcare through domestic labor (le Roux and Lesch 2022; Lee and Lee 2018; Moura et al. 2024; My 2022) as well as analyses of attempts aimed at combining careers with fatherhood (Smith et al. 2024). For example, Lee and Lee (2018) analyzed the narratives of stay-at-home fathers and concluded that the majority of them developed traits of CM identified by Elliott (2016), even though simultaneously they did not reject the ideas of traditional masculinity, claiming that “being a dad is macho!” (2018, 52)

Fatherhood, care obligations, and the notion of CM have also been significant in studies analyzing men and masculinities attitudes, behaviors, and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic (Baral 2021; Ciaputa et al. 2023; Wojnicka 2021; Wojnicka and Kubisa 2024). These make the case that, as a result of the pandemic, men were being forced to reckon with (or express a desire) to share domestic labor more equally during lockdowns. This, according to some researchers, led to the development of CM among some groups of men, (Ciaputa et al. 2023).

The practice of taking parental leave, which is something that, to some extent, is measurable, has also been a significant area of focus (Beglaubter 2019; Brandth and Kvande 2018; Romero-Balsas et al. 2019). While Brandth and Kvande who interviewed fathers on parental leave observed the evolution towards CM where care-related values and practices are incorporated into masculine identities without diminishing their status (2018), Romero-Balsas et al. who interviewed policemen noted that encouraging fathers to take leave to care for their children independently is an effective way to promote men taking more parental leave in heavily male-dominated environments (2021, 495).

In the context of practices, there is also a visible focus on men who engage in care work as part of their professional or occupational lives (Kluczyńska 2021; van Wees et al. 2023) and analyses of the prevalence of CM in organizations (Lund et al. 2019; Scambor et al. 2024). In the first instance, researchers focus on men working in women-dominated professions such as nurses (Kluczyńska 2021), (preschool) teachers and caregivers (Kabesa and Berkovich 2023; Rhode-Abuba 2020) and elderly caregivers (Leontowitsch 2022), where the analyses focus either on the process of learning how to care and how to incorporate caring activities as a part of male identity, or/and the negotiations of new forms of masculinities that oscillate between caring, hegemonic and hybrid forms of gender performances. Finally, an interesting account of the “(...) ambivalence and struggles between hegemonic and caring masculinities” in terms of familial responsibilities has been captured in the interviews with young male academics delivered by Lund et al. (2019).

Caring Masculinities as a Social Process

Finally, there is a focus on CM as a social process, open to renegotiation and change, rather than as a step on the way toward the attainment of a specific endpoint. Such processes involve constant negotiations based on the material experiences of different groups of men (Nayak 2023; Prattes 2022), and, as such, there is a growing recognition of problems and contradictions that caring throws up. A good example is Nayak’s (2023) study, which suggests that first, CM can enhance dominating forms of masculinity and reinforce colonial and gender-oppressive systems by establishing care as a new form of hegemonic masculinity in neoliberal societies. Nevertheless, the author also notes that CM can evolve into a progressive means of gender expression by embracing intersectional and decolonial perspectives regarding the structural, material, and geographical inequalities in caregiving (2023, 167), which can be seen as a more elaborated appeal published in her other paper on CM and young men (Bonner-Thompson and Nayak 2022; Nayak 2024). The same argument is raised by Prattes (2022), who, while being in favor of the concept in general, criticizes insufficient focus on analyses of the structures on (non)domination in the majority of existing studies. She claims that rejection of domination is a crucial element of CM theory and calls for paying larger attention to the postcolonial power relations, where systemic oppression within the field of care is already highly visible. Finally, issues of power and domination are also discussed in the paper on “masculinized care” (2018), where, based on data collected among fathers’ rights activists, Jordan analyses their understanding of care as a part of masculine identity. She concludes that the research participants often incorporate care or caring practices to hegemonic and traditional forms of gender performances and by that, may nullify its gender progressive character. On the other hand, she does not reject CM’s emancipatory potential but calls for more nuanced analyses of the concept and emphasizes the importance of considering the contexts in which CM can be effectively utilized (2018, 36). Jordan’s statement is echoed in Hanlon’s theoretical paper, where he critically analyses selected literature on care and masculinities. Hanlon claims that in order to capture the nature of CM better, research needs to focus on its five dimensions: “(i) the intersection of multiple inequalities; (ii) the affective circles of caring; (iii) the specificity of caring work; (iv) the inequalities of caring; and (v) the ethics of caring practices” (2022, 9).

Caring Masculinities Contested

The analyses presented in the previous section, while critical in terms of revealing a fair amount of contradiction between ideal and reality (Nasser El-Dine 2018), are still in favor of the concept of CM, calling for more nuanced theoretical reflections while applying it in future studies. One exception is Hunter et al. (2017), who critically examined the usability of the CM in the research on fathers and fatherhood. Analyzing existing literature on male parenting, the authors claim, that CM is too optimistic concept and that the evoked studies are based on narratives rather than actual practices of fatherhood, which leads the authors to the conclusion, that CM can be seen merely as a cosmetic change in the dominant forms of male gender performance. Moreover, they claim that in the majority of cases, “(...) the ideas surrounding a CM are better understood as a broadening of hegemonic masculinity to include roles more traditionally undertaken by women” (2017, 8). A similar position characterizes Hytti et al.’s (2024) analysis who firstly introduce the concept of entrepreneurial CM that is eventually defined as a form of either hybrid or hegemonic masculinity.

Critical Junctures

Problem Types

As noted above, despite some exceptions, CM has a tendency toward viewing caring as indicative of a type of masculinity which marks a distinctly new form of social practice. As a number of authors have argued, the incessant typologizing of masculinities in CSMM, formed by adding an adjective to the noun masculinity/ies, is a problem for a number of reasons; not least in that it gives fixity to what are constantly shifting of social processes (Beasley 2012). In the vein of Weberian-inspired ideal-type sociology, there is a tendency to stress the concurrence of practices with identities and to inadvertently emphasize more and less progressive individual men. We will return to this point later but not only does this “conflate power relations with particular social agents” (Beasley 2012, 759), suggesting power as something which an individual owns rather than emerging as a result of shifting social relations, but it underplays some of the messiness, complexities and contradictions between ideal type and behavior; a caring father can be an abusive husband, an emotionally inarticulate friend can be a generous and caring source of support. This is not just a difference between the “real person” and public performance but reflects something more fundamental about masculinity as an evolving social formation and men’s lived experiences as contradictory despite the persistence of structural inequalities (Bridges and Pascoe 2014). Indeed, contradictions between ideal and experience is noted in the development of hegemonic masculinity.

Forms of Caring

A key question for literature on CM is what forms of caring count as progressive shifts. Whilst the initial concept stressed the notion of care work (unwaged or waged), subsequent approaches have blended together different forms of caring. As Scholz (2024), utilizing Tronto’s (2013) model, suggest, it is necessary to distinguish between forms of caring when employing the concept. The term care - and indeed the way CM has been applied - can take a wide variety of forms, which encompass caring for others (doing paid or unpaid care work), caring about others (interpersonal and affective bonds), and engaging in self-care.

The former fits well with pro-feminist models, which chime with the intention behind the development of the concept. Self-care, however, whether in terms of “healthy” or “unhealthy” behaviors, is an eminently more comfortable fit with previous models of masculinity in that the idea of maintaining a healthy body through self-care has long been an aspect of Cartesian notions of self-discipline and control. These differences are not always teased out of current approaches. Nissen’s (2017) study, for instance, employs the concept of CM against the backdrop of shifts in “other-directed caring”. Yet most of the article focuses on how men engage in practices of self-care in terms of their eating habits, with a large chunk of the article concerned with how men derive pleasure from not caring about what they eat and others actively resisting healthy eating. Care about others, too, is not necessarily progressive. For instance, homosociality has been one of the central ways in which groups of men have solidified privilege, yet this implies caring for and about other men is necessarily transformative. The problem is that a wide variety of practices are blended together as evidence for a new type of man based on CM, without attention to the initial emancipatory potential of the term as concerned with the distribution of work and labour.

The distinction between care and protection also needs to be emphasized, as they are often mistakenly used interchangeably. Tronto, for instance, views both breadwinning and protection as masculine forms of care (2013), yet definitions that assume an equal division of male care (breadwinning) and female care (nurturing) fail to consider power relations (Wojnicka and Kubisa 2024) and specifically the fact that domestic care is still unremunerated. The utilization of protective masculinity, along with CM in the studies on fathering practices, also frames the analyses of Wang and Keizer (2024), as well as Graf and Wojnicka (2023) are instructive here. Whilst the distinction between caring forms is developed by Scholz (2024) in terms of receiving care, caring for, and caring about are important, the tendency to collapse “breadwinning” and care work into the second category oversimplifies and obscures the continuation of gendered aspects of care. It not only implies that men and women are equally involved in caregiving activities—women through nurturing and men through breadwinning—but also overlooks the complexity of power dynamics crucial for understanding gender inequalities in care.

Performative Care and Rewarding Caring

A related problem is that, in terms of a collapsing division of domestic labor and caring, it is not necessarily borne out by the data, and there is a conflation of attitudes with practices. It is undoubtedly true that men, in general, are undertaking care work on a larger scale than in previous generations, but there is, in short, a difference between talking about caring and engaging in care work, whether domestic or outside of the home (Hunter et al. 2017). With respect to Scheibling’s (2020) dad bloggers, whilst the fact that these fathers emphasize their caring duties is important, they are doing so primarily for an audience meaning that the concept is used here in a manner which does not accurately describe what fathers’ actual caring practices are. The monetization of content where they are performatively (sincerely or not) engaging with caring is not representative of what fathers actually do. The wider cultural resonance of these bloggers/vloggers is important, but there is no guarantee that their audiences are primarily other men. Thus, the extent to which they are indicative of a wider cultural shift is questionable. In addition, Elliott’s (2020) study identifies several ways in which young men express how they think they will be as fathers (expressed in terms of attitudes) amongst young men. This is undoubtedly a positive shift but there is a huge difference between how one thinks they will be as a father and the realities of fatherhood, which are exacerbated by structural constraints and policies (more on this below).

Recent data on the division of domestic labor indicates that the types of care done by fathers are very different from those of mothers. Despite significant elements of “convergence” in terms of housework and childcare over the past 50 years (Altintas and Sullivan 2016), even in contemporary Sweden, in two-parent heterosexual households, fathers spend double as much time on hobbies and an hour and a half less engaged in the day-to-day care on average (amongst couples with kids) than women (SCB 2022). In the US, even where men earn as much as women, men spend c.3.6 hours more on leisure time per week and c. 4.5 hours less on childcare and domestic work (Fry et al. 2023). These data also show that fathers are more likely to spend more time at work, engage in play-based activities with their children, whereas mothers are still more likely to handle the day-to-day organization of their children’s lives as well as help with homework. This trend was exacerbated by the pandemic where Time-Use survey data in England for instance, indicated that similarities in job type and wage failed to account for the fact that mothers took an overwhelming responsibility for childcare and domestic labour (Andrew et al. 2022). Wojnicka and Kubisa (2024), noted that the caring activities performed by men were highly selective and men utilized cherry-picking strategies, which led the researchers to reject the optimistic hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic positively impacted the expansion of CM among fathers, and proposed the alternative concept of protective masculinity, that is seen as an oppositional to the latter. The point here is that fathers spending time at home either with their children or engaged in domestic labor does not mean that the types of labor are distributed equally; fathers care but they do not necessarily share.

Who Can Care and Who can Share? Who is Perceived as Caring?

Whilst Elliott and Roberts (2023) argue that the value of CM is that it does not only look at men in terms of structural domination, one of the key issues is that approaches to CM tend to overlook is the way that structural privilege shapes opportunities to care. The issue of focusing on change amongst those in the “center” at the expense of those on the periphery (marginalized, stigmatized, and subordinated men) is a problem that is well-recognized by the authors. Yet, much of their theoretical work is derived based on empirical work with those from relatively privileged white-collar backgrounds (Lund et al., 2019), despite this critique (for exceptions see Elliott and Roberts 2023). The simple formulation that “closed = regressive/open = progressive” loses sight of the structural privileges which enable some men to engage in childcare more than others. Rather than a lack of willingness on the part of ethnic minority men or migrant men to care, this is also a result of wider structural inequalities which mean that there are key dynamics in who can afford to care. Childcare policies that favor flexible hours, home-working, and generous parental leave, tend to be “white-collar” jobs (Geisler and Kreyenfeld 2018). In “blue-collar” households, for instance, where, male partners work in highly skilled forms of production or in the construction, energy, and transport industries, gendered organizational structures mean that high-paying jobs in these industries are dominated by men and that equivalent blue-collar jobs which women undertake, which require similar levels of on-the-job training or apprenticeships, are much less well-paid; it makes less economic sense to share parental leave equally. Policy around parental leave has a huge impact in terms of shaping attitudes (Salin et al. 2018) rather than the other way round. This is why a focus largely on attitudes, or even often behaviors, as a primary indicator of caring misses the role between social structure and care. The reasons for disparities are structural rather than cultural or attitudinal; men who are more able to work from home or have less demands placed on their time are able to be more physically present than those who work manual labor or factory jobs. Thus, changing attitudes is important, but it is equally important to recognize intersectionality in the role of policies in supporting caring.

Class & and Race Issues in the “Male” Chain of “Care”

A particular oversight in theories on CM with respect to intersectional factors of class and race is that in terms of men undertaking so-called “feminized jobs” (vital tertiary sector jobs such as cleaning, hospital porters, caregivers for elderly for instance), it is disproportionately men of color and migrant men who do these jobs and have done for longer periods of time than are acknowledged in approaches to CM.

In the UK, Black minority ethnic individuals make up 4 percent of the total population but 14 percent of those who work in care-homes and the vast majority of care workers still identify as women (Skills for Care 2024). In addition, the use of waged domestic labor within middle-class households - particularly in the US and to a lesser extent the UK - indicates how many families rely largely on men and women of color as well as migrants, to undertake at least part of other domestic responsibilities (childcare, cleaning, care of elderly relatives). US Department of Labor stats indicate that there are 600,000 home care workers (for instance babysitters, adult care and cleaners), whilst others put the number at closer to 2.2–2.3 million (Banarjee et al. 2022; Mitchell 2024). All are liable to be underestimates when accounting for cash-in-hand arrangements. Though, despite discrepancies in the total number all agree that the workforce is roughly two-thirds from minority ethnic groups including Black, Hispanic and Pacific Islander individuals and predominantly women. This “frees up” time to spend on caring amongst wealthier families. Whilst it is clearly an important step that men, in general, are taking on more childcare and unpaid domestic labor, there are structural issues in who can afford to care and share.

For this reason, we would suggest that it is necessary to understand this change in all its intersectional complexities as it also relates to social structures. We agree particularly with Roberts and Elliott’s (2020) assertion that change does not simply come from those who enjoy social privilege and that it is necessary to foreground caring practices amongst marginalized groups and to consider. The problem, empirically, is that existing work on CM does not currently do this given that it focuses largely on privileged groups. Furthermore, such a view of change is compatible with more poststructuralist conceptions of competing ideas and experiences of masculinity as contradictory, messy, and often incoherent. This focus on the messiness of discourses about and experiences of contradictory ideas around masculinity can complement a more structural understanding of economic and social power without conflating discourses about caring with the concrete practices of equitable distribution of care work.

Concluding Discussion

As with hegemonic masculinity, there is a fundamental question as to the extent to which ideal types have complexity, with the usual problems that typologies imply (Beasley 2012). The risk here is that it suggests the attainment of a psychological state that potentially leaves little room for a lack of nuance and contradiction at the micro-level. Viewing it as a social process, by contrast, suggests that broader social shifts may have changed patterns, practices, and attitudes, but these are by no means always progressive on the individual level. Caring is an ongoing always process that needs to be constantly reaffirmed and renewed rather than a status that one can simply attain. Importantly, caring can easily develop into a protectorate paternalism. Crucially, as Wojnicka (2021) argues, care can be interpreted in a variety of ways across cultural and social backgrounds, and even caring for other family members takes a variety of forms ranging from benign to patriarchal.

In line with the concept of hybrid masculinities (Bridges and Pascoe 2014), we suggest that what is frequently labelled as caring masculinity does not necessarily represent a fundamental overhaul of unequal distributions of labour but rather an incorporation of certain caring practices as a response to the crisis of legitimacy posed by demands for change. There have undoubtedly been social shifts in the amount of domestic labour and level of childcare that certain groups of men do relative to previous generations. What this argument misses, however, is the extent to which women’s increasing participation in the labour market has also gone hand in hand with continued disparities in the distribution of caring tasks. As a result, whilst CM proponents, like proponents of “inclusive masculinity” (Anderson & McCormack 2018) argue that shifts in the performance of dominant masculinity are driven by those groups most oppressed by it, they often lose sight of the continued relative structural disadvantage of these groups in emphasising the positives.

Societal shifts have undoubtedly impacted policies to encourage men to take on greater responsibility for caring, and these, in turn, have made it easier, in many countries, for men to take on greater child-care responsibilities particularly. At a broad level, this shift is borne out by the data, which indicates that men are taking a more active role. The corpus of material on CM and men who care is a vital counterpoint to over-deterministic notions of masculinity as merely social reproduction and which recognizes many men’s increased role in undertaking caring responsibilities. However, a key aspect in recognizing the usefulness of the concept of CM is understanding not just performative aspects of caring but the extent to which this marks a social process as a result of hard-won gains rather than a type of “good man”. This involves a greater focus on the extent to which attitudes mirror actual distributions of care practices. Importantly, the emphasis on changing structural dynamics that support the caring activities of predominantly men in white-collar professions, as well as the low remuneration of women and minority groups in paid caring professions, must also change; otherwise, it is an empty signifier. More needs to be done to understand if there are structural barriers to caring between groups of men and what can be done to remove these (Nayak 2023; Prattes 2022).

There are already several alternative concepts to the concept of CM, such as hybrid and protective masculinities, which offer more critical means of thinking about the incorporation of altered forms of gendered practices without losing sight of structural privilege. Elliott even notes that her (2020, 2) work focuses on “men who might be considered according to Connell's [1995] definition … of [sic] complicit masculinity. That is, men who benefit from the patriarchal dividend through being advantaged along multiple axes, despite not having to live up to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity”. This quote alone would seem to suggest that the practices that CM documents might also be captured by concepts, such as hybrid masculinity, which already exist and which account for change within a broader structural framework.

Protective masculinity is especially useful in the context of masculine care (Jordan 2018), which is, in fact, an element of dominant forms of masculinity and can be seen rather as protection than care. Time use data shows clear convergence in terms of domestic care, but it also demonstrates a “levelling off” akin to that of the gender wage gap, and there are significant divides (still) in those working in care. The concept of protective masculinity that centers on both, physical and economic power, with financial and physical protection/service of dependents being fundamental to the unequal power dynamics it perpetuates. Protective masculinity, associated with domination, control, and male privileges (Wojnicka and Kubisa 2024) can be seen as a better-suited concept in the analyses, where male care is seen as a prolongation of hegemonic performances (Hunter et al. 2017; Jordan 2018) rather than a way of deconstructing existing power relations. Utilization of protective masculinity can prevent situation where “(…) there are certainly ways in which ‘caring masculinity’ can become yet another manifestation of patriarchy, by way of paternalism. While “caring masculinity” may look good, having many of the hallmarks of progress, there are nefarious ways in which it could potentially be weaponized or could become toxic or could deny agency to women. That is, caring masculinity could recentre men, once more endowing them with a power of ‘knowing better’” (Allan 2024, 7).

As already mentioned, hybrid masculinity can serve as another fitting alternative to capture specific practices that only seem to be part of the caring masculinity repertoire. To identify certain gender practices as forms of caring masculinity, men’s involvement in caring activities, while necessary, is not a sufficient condition. Adopting some practices characteristic of caring masculinity, while rejecting only certain elements of hegemonic or complicit masculinities, may lead to the emergence of hybrid masculinity. This type of gender identity is characterized by men appearing to challenge hegemonic masculinity while selectively incorporating aspects of subordinated or marginalized masculinities, along with certain “feminine” traits, into dominant male identities and practices (Bridges & Pascoe 2014). At first glance, hybrid masculinity may seem progressive and emancipatory, as the rejection of some hegemonic traits could suggest the development of more equitable forms of male gender performance. Selectivity lies at the core of hybrid masculinity. As Bridges and Pascoe note (2014), the flexibility of dominant forms of masculinity mean that it is always hybridising and, in Connell’s original terms, it is this hybridity which provides “the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimation of problem of patriarchy” (Connell 1995, 75). Thus, while hybrid masculinity may alter men’s behaviors and practices, it often shifts rather than deconstructs hegemonic systems of power and gender hierarchies. We agree, crucially, that it is necessary to focus on men’s experiences of vulnerability, care as well as the way in which dominant groups are conferred privilege through social power but both are equally important.

Practices have the potential to change the structures, but the focus on social processes, as a relation that is always-in-flux, which makes way for men to engage in caring, is how we understand the concept. In this way, the emphasis is firmly on what social conditions enable particular groups of men to engage in care work and what forms of caring are desirable. Crucially, in future research, we need to ask what are the structural conditions under which care work and more equitable distribution of domestic and caring labor happens. What forms of caring are desirable? How is caring possible and how should it be made possible?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Katarzyna Wojnicka

Sam de Boise

Author Biographies

Katarzyna Wojnicka Associate Professor of Sociology works at the Department of Sociology and Work Science and Centre for European Research at the University of Gothenburg. She is a co-editor-in-chief of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies . Her current projects focus on men and masculinities,migration,and European social movements. She has published in outlets such as Men and Masculinities,Gender,Work and Organization,International Journal of Qualitative Methods,and Qualitative Research . In 2023,she received the Emma Goldman Award from the Flax Foundation for her substantial contribution to research on social inequalities in Europe.

Sam de Boise is a senior lecturer at the School of Music,Theatre and Art at Örebro University,Sweden. His work has focused the intersections of emotions with men and masculinities as well as questions of gender equality in relation to the music industries. His current research focuses on music in far-right social movements. He is the author of Men,Masculinity,Music and Emotions (2015 Palgrave Macmillan) and co-editor-in-chief of NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies.

References

Allan

J. A.

2022. ““Husbands are Pregnant, Too”: Caring Masculinities in Pregnancy Books for Men.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 31 (2): 282-302. doi:10.1177/10608265221122799.

Allan

J. A.

2024. ““Condoms Break. Birth Control Fails.” Heroes in the Procreative Realm and Jessica Scott’s “Anything for You”.” Journal of Popular Romance Studies 13: 1–14.

Allan

J. A.

Herron

R. V.

Ahmadu

M. E.

WBiyleaddell

Roger

. 2020. “‘“I Never Wanted My Children to See Their Father the Way I’ve Seen Mine”: Caring Masculinities and Fathering on the Prairies.” NORMA 16 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1080/18902138.2020.1866322.

Altintas

Sullivan

. 2016. “Fifty Years of Change Updated: Cross-National Gender Convergence in Housework.” Demographic Research 35: 455–470. doi:10.4054/demres.2016.35.16.

Anderson

2012. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. Routledge.

Andrew

Cattan

Costa Dias

, et al. 2022. “The Gendered Division of Paid and Domestic Work Under Lockdown.” Fiscal Studies 43: 325–340. doi:10.1111/1475-5890.12312.

Araüna

Tortajada

Willem

C. M.

. 2018. “Portrayals of Caring Masculinities in Fiction Film: The Male Caregiver in Still Mine, Intouchables and Nebraska.” Masculinities & Social Change 7 (1): 82. doi:10.17583/mcs.2018.2749.

Arcimowicz

2020. “The Category of Masculinity in the Polish Media Discourse on Robert Lewandowski.” Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej 16 (1): 12–27. doi:10.18778/1733-8069.16.1.02.

Banerjee

de Courcy

Moore

K. K.

Wolfe

. 2022. “Domestic Workers Chartbook 2022.” Available online: https://www.epi.org/publication/domestic-workers-chartbook-2022. Accessed 3rd October 2024.

10.

Baral

2021. ““Thanks to Corona Virus”: Trajectories of Masculinities During the Ugandan Lockdown.” NORMA 16 (3): 174–189. doi:10.1080/18902138.2021.1956830.

11.

Beasley

2012. “Problematizing Contemporary Men/Masculinities Theorizing: The Contribution of Raewyn Connell and Conceptual-Terminological Tensions Today.” The British Journal of Sociology 63 (4): 747–765.

12.

Beglaubter

2019. ““I Feel Like it’s a Little Bit of a Badge of Honor”: Fathers’ Leave-Taking and the Development of Caring Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 24 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1177/1097184x19874869.

13.

Bonner-Thompson

Nayak

. 2022. “Crafting Masculinities: Embodying, Recuperating and Redistributing Care in Young Lives.” Social & Cultural Geography 23 (9): 1238–1256. doi:10.1080/14649365.2021.1910993.

14.

Boyle

2002. ““Sailing Twixt Scylla and Charybdis”: Negotiating Multiple Organizational Masculinities.” Women in Management Review 17 (3/4): 131–141.

15.

Brandth

Kvande

. 2018. “Masculinity and Fathering Alone During Parental Leave.” Men and Masculinities 21 (1): 72–90. doi:10.1177/1097184x16652659.

16.

Bridges

Pascoe

C. J.

. 2014. “Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men and Masculinities.” Sociology Compass 8: 246–258. doi:10.1111/soc4.12134.

17.

Brüggemann

2020. “Redefining Masculinity – Men’s Repair Work in the Aftermath of Prostate Cancer Treatment.” Health Sociology Review 30 (2): 143–156. doi:10.1080/14461242.2020.1820367.

18.

Cannito

Mercuri

. 2022. “Caring Masculinities in Prison? Social Workers and Programs Dealing with Incarcerated Fatherhood.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1707–1722. doi:10.1111/gwao.12944.

19.

Christensen

A.-D.

Jensen

S. Q.

. 2014. “Combining Hegemonic Masculinity and Intersectionality.” NORMA 9 (1): 60–75. doi:10.1080/18902138.2014.892289.

20.

Ciaputa

Warat

Krzaklewska

. 2023. “It Takes Two to Be Equal? Middle-Class Men Managing Care and Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland.” Gender a výzkum / Gender and Research 24 (1): 62–86. doi:10.13060/gav.2023.008.

21.

Connell

1995. Masculinities. Polity Press.

22.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender and Society 19 (6): 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

23.

de Boise

Hearn

. 2017. “Are Men Getting More Emotional? Critical Sociological Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Emotions.” The Sociological Review 65 (4): 779–796. doi:10.1177/0038026116686500.

24.

Elliott

2016. “Caring Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 19 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1177/1097184x15576203.

25.

Elliott

2019. “Negotiations Between Progressive and “Traditional” Expressions of Masculinity Among Young Australian Men.” Journal of Sociology 55 (1): 108–123. doi:10.1177/1440783318802996.

26.

Elliott

2020. Young Men Navigating Contemporary Masculinities. Springer Nature.

27.

Elliott

Roberts

. 2023. “Caring Masculinities Among Working‐Class Men in Blue-Collar Occupations in the UK: Understanding Biographies of Care.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1690–1706. doi:10.1111/gwao.12936.

28.

Firdaus

Aksar

Gong

Dharejo

. 2023. “New Father a Male Ally-Ship in Women’s Movement: Effects of Digital Feminism in Reshaping Patriarchal Behavior.” Masculinities & Social Change 12 (3): 254–272. doi:10.17583/mcs.12006.

29.

Fry

Aragão

Hurst

Parker

. 2023. “In a Growing Share of U.S. Marriages, Husbands and Wives Earn about the Same.” Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/. Accessed 11th October 2024.

30.

Gärtner

Gieseke

Beier

. 2006. FOCUS – Fostering Caring Masculinities. German National Report. The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud.

31.

Geisler

Kreyenfeld

. 2018. “Policy Reform and Fathers’ Use of Parental Leave in Germany: The Role of Education and Workplace Characteristics.” Journal of European Social Policy 29 (2): 273–291. doi:10.1177/0958928718765638.

32.

Graf

T. E.

Wojnicka

. 2023. “Post-Separation Fatherhood Narratives in Germany and Sweden: Between Caring and Protective Masculinities.” Journal of Family Studies 29 (3): 1022–1042. doi:10.1080/13229400.2021.2020148.

33.

Hanlon

2009. Masculinities and Affective Equality: Love Labour and Care Labour in Men’s Lives. University College Dublin.

34.

Hanlon

2012a. “Breadwinner Masculinities.” In Masculinities, Care and Equality, 109–130. Springer. doi:10.1057/9781137264879_6.

35.

Hanlon

2012b. Masculinities, Care and Equality: Identity and Nurture in Men’s Lives. Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

Hanlon

2022. ““Masculinities and Affective Equality; the Case of Professional Caring”.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1676–1689. doi:10.1111/gwao.12937.

37.

Heath

2003. “Soft-Boiled Masculinity: Renegotiating Gender and Racial Ideologies in the Promise Keepers Movement.” Gender & Society 17 (3): 423–444.

38.

Holter

Ø. G.

Lindquist

C. S.

. 2003. Can Men Do it? : Men and Gender Equality--the Nordic Experience. Nordic Council of Ministers.

39.

hooks

2004. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Atria Books.

40.

Hookway

N.S.

Cruickshank

. 2022. “Changing Masculinities? Using Caring Masculinity to Analyse Social Media Responses to the Decline of Men in Australian Primary School Teaching.” Journal of Sociology 60 (1): 229–247. doi:10.1177/14407833221136018.

41.

Hunter

S. C.

Riggs

D. W.

Augoustinos

. 2017. “Hegemonic Masculinity versus a Caring Masculinity: Implications for Understanding Primary Caregiving Fathers.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11 (3): e12307. doi:10.1111/spc3.12307.

42.

Hytti

Karhunen

Radu-Lefebvre

. 2024. “Entrepreneurial Masculinity: A Fatherhood Perspective.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 48 (1): 246–273. doi:10.1177/10422587231155863.

43.

Jordan

2018. “‘Masculinizing Care? Gender, Ethics of Care, and Fathers’ Rights Groups.” Men and Masculinities 23 (1): 20-41. doi:10.1177/1097184x18776364.

44.

Joshi

2021. ““I Do Not Want to Be a Weekend Papa”: The Demographic “Crisis,” Active Fatherhood, and Emergent Caring Masculinities in Berlin.” Journal of Family Issues 42 (5): 883–907. doi:10.1177/0192513x21994154.

45.

Kabesa

Berkovich

. 2023. “Gendered Constructions of Good Management by Men School Leaders: Between Hegemonic and Caring Masculinity.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 11 (2): 1–17. doi:10.1177/17411432231210379

46.

Kluczynska

2021. “Caring Masculinity or Hybrid Masculinity? An Analysis of Research Results on Male Nurses in Poland.” Society Register 5 (1): 7–26. doi:10.14746/sr.2021.5.1.01.

47.

le Roux

Lesch

. 2022. “Exploring the Caring of Fathers in Low-Income, Rural Communities in South Africa.” Journal of Family Studies 29 (3): 1198–1221. doi:10.1080/13229400.2022.2035246.

48.

Lee

J. Y.

Lee

S. J.

. 2018. “Caring is Masculine: Stay-At-Home Fathers and Masculine Identity.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity 19 (1): 47–58. doi:10.1037/men0000079.

49.

Leontowitsch

2022. “Caring Masculinities at Work in Later Life: Exploring Relational Care Work in Retirement.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1738–1753. doi:10.1111/gwao.12954.

50.

Liu

Lin

. 2023. “Caring Masculinity as Caring Capital in the Field of Marriage: Chinese Rural Migrant Men’s Engagement with Digital Dating.” Information, Communication & Society 26 (8): 1637–1652. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.2020869.

51.

Lund

Meriläinen

Tienari

. 2019. “New Masculinities in Universities? Discourses, Ambivalence and Potential Change.” Gender, Work & Organization 26 (10): 1376–1397. doi:10.1111/gwao.12383.

52.

Martínez-Pastor

Juan-Ignacio

Jurado-Guerrero

Teresa

Fernández-Lozano

Irina

Castellanos-Serrano

Cristina

. 2024. “Caring Fathers in Europe: Toward Universal Caregiver Families?” Gender, Work & Organization 31 (5): 1616–38. doi:10.1111/gwao.12948.

53.

Mitchell

2024. “Domestic Workers in the United States.” Available online: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/DomesticWorkersFactSheet.pdf. Accessed 26th September 2024.

54.

Mitchell

Kelly-Hanku

Mek

, et al. 2019. “Caring Masculinities in the Context of HIV Serodiscordant Relationships in Papua New Guinea.” Men and Masculinities 24 (2): 326–344. doi:10.1177/1097184x19889659.

55.

Moura

Mehaffey

Lubbock

, et al. 2024. “Engaged Fatherhood and New Models of “Nurturing Care”: Lessons Learned from Austria, Italy, Lithuania and Portugal.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1639–1656. doi:10.1111/gwao.13147.

56.

2022. “A Continuum of Caring Masculinities: Evidence from Khmer Men’s Childcare Practices.” NORMA 18 (3): 191–206. doi:10.1080/18902138.2022.2151274.

57.

Nasser El-Dine

2018. “Love, Materiality, and Masculinity in Jordan.” Men and Masculinities 21 (3): 423–442. doi:10.1177/1097184x17748174.

58.

Nayak

2023. “Decolonizing Care: Hegemonic Masculinity, Caring Masculinities, and the Material Configurations of Care.” Men and Masculinities 26 (2): 167–187. doi:10.1177/1097184x231166900.

59.

Nayak

2024. “Feminist Political Economies of Care: Young People, Masculinities and De-industrialisation in a Former Shipbuilding Community.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 56: 1632–1650. doi:10.1177/0308518x241226888.

60.

Nissen

2017. “‘Men’s Everyday Health Care: Practices, Tensions and Paradoxes, and Masculinities in Denmark’.” Medical Anthropology 36 (6): 551–565. doi:10.1080/01459740.2017.1316981.

61.

Prattes

2022. “Caring Masculinities and Race: On Racialized Workers and “New Fathers”.” Men and Masculinities 25 (5): 721–742. doi:10.1177/1097184x211065024.

62.

Rhode-Abuba

2020. “Biographical Agency of Male Au Pair Migration to Germany.” Open Gender Journal 4: 1–19. doi:10.17169/ogj.2020.115

63.

Roberts

Elliott

. 2020. “Challenging Dominant Representations of Marginalized Boys and Men in Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities.” Boyhood Studies 13 (2): 87–104. doi:10.3167/bhs.2020.130207.

64.

Roberts

Prattes

. 2023. “Caring Masculinities in Theory and Practice: Reiterating the Relevance and Clarifying the Capaciousness of the Concept.” Sociological Research Online 29: 767–777. doi:10.1177/13607804231205978.

65.

Romero-Balsas

Meil

Rogero-García

. 2019. “Policemen on Leave Alone in Spain. A Rift in Hegemonic Masculinity?” Men and Masculinities 24 (3): 483–500. doi:10.1177/1097184x19878221.

66.

Roy

Ayalon

. 2023. “Ever the Father: Caring Masculinities Among Older Men in Two Bollywood Films.” The Gerontologist 63 (6): 1078–1086. doi:10.1093/geront/gnac139.

67.

Ruby

Scholz

. 2018. “Care, Care Work and the Struggle for a Careful World from the Perspective of the Sociology of Masculinities.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 43 (1): 73–83. doi:10.1007/s11614-018-0284-z.

68.

Salin

Ylikännö

Hakovirta

. 2018. “How to Divide Paid Work and Unpaid Care between Parents? Comparison of Attitudes in 22 Western Countries.” Social Sciences 7 (10): 188. doi:10.3390/socsci7100188.

69.

Scambor

Bergmann

Wojnicka

, et al. 2014. “Men and Gender Equality: European Insights.” Men and Masculinities 17 (5): 552–577. doi:10.1177/1097184x14558239.

70.

Scambor

Gärtner

Holter

Ø.G.

Snickare

Warat

. 2024. “Caring Masculinities at Work: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives across Europe.” Gender Work & Organizations 31 (5): 1605–1615. doi:10.1111/gwao.13034.

71.

SCB . 2022. “En fråga om tid: En studie om tidsanvändingen bland kvinnor och män 2021.” Available online: https://www.scb.se/contentassets/4e98132b0b784a01b6e4762e909a6fa2/le0103_2021a01_br_lebr2202.pdf. Accessed 15th December 2023.

72.

Scheibling

2020. ““Real Heroes Care”: How Dad Bloggers are Reconstructing Fatherhood and Masculinities.” Men and Masculinities 23 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1177/1097184x18816506.

73.

Scholz

2024. “Caring Boyhood? A Qualitative Study of the Complex Relation between Care, Adolescence, and Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 28 (1): 44–64. doi:10.1177/1097184x24125635.

74.

Skills for Care . 2024. “The State of the Adult Social Care Sector and Workforce in England.” Available online: https://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Adult-Social-Care-Workforce-Data/Workforce-intelligence/publications/national-information/The-state-of-the-adult-social-care-sector-and-workforce-in-England.aspx. Accessed 25th September 2024.

75.

Smith

S. V.

Darroch

F. E.

Giles

A. R.

, et al. 2024. “Fatherhood and Elite Athletics: Sacrifice, Selfishness, and Gaining “Dad Strength”.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 32 (1): 152–177. doi:10.1177/10608265231204564.

76.

Teinemaa

Unt

. 2022. “Contradictions of Hegemonic Masculinity and the (Hopeful) Potential of Old Age and Caring Masculinity in Estonian Society and in Films a Friend of Mine (2011) and Tangerines (2013).” Journal of Aging Studies 63: 101034. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2022.101034.

77.

Tronto

J. C.

2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality and Justice. New York University Press.

78.

van Wees

Duijs

S. E.

Mazurel

, et al. 2023. “Negotiating Masculinities at the Expense of Health: A Qualitative Study on Men Working in Long‐Term Care in the Netherlands, from an Intersectional Perspective.” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1657–1675. doi:10.1111/gwao.12952.

79.

Villa-Palomino

2024. “Learning to Care: Men’s Parental Caregiving for Sons and Daughters in Peru.” Men and Masculinities 27 (1): 23–41. doi:10.1177/1097184x231226332.

80.

Wang

Keizer

. 2024. ““I Am a Traditional But Caring Father”: Narratives of Paternal Masculinity in Urban Chinese Families.” Journal of Gender Studies 33: 1–16. doi:10.1080/09589236.2023.2300426.

81.

Wojnicka

2021. “Men and Masculinities in Times of Crisis: Between Care and Protection.” NORMA 16 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1080/18902138.2021.1885860.

82.

Wojnicka

Kubisa

. 2024. “The COVID‐19 Pandemic and Caring Masculinity: New Prospects or a Wasted Opportunity?” Gender, Work & Organization 31: 1723–1737. doi:10.1111/gwao.13007.

83.

Yoon

Park

. 2024. “Development of Work-Life/family Policy and Gendered Division of Childcare Responsibility: The Case of South Korea.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 44 (1/2): 59–75. doi:10.1108/ijssp-12-2022-0325.