Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Early data from several countries regarding the gendered implications of COVID-19 suggest that men are more likely to die as an effect of infection. This has been explained by biological factors but also by behavioral and life-style issues characteristic mostly for men. What has not been widely discussed, however, is the analysis of the relationships between men’s responses to the crisis, their (lack of) care activities, and certain models of masculinity that persist in many societies. In this paper, I use a three dimensional model of care – a) self-care, b) care for others, and c) care for one’s society – in order to analyze how certain masculine behaviors, rooted in socially constructed gender performances, resonate with the COVID-19 pandemic. The data used in this paper are of secondary character and will serve to analyze the most common responses of men within the three dimensions of care mentioned above. The theoretical framework utilizes the notion of caring masculinity supported by an emerging theory of protective masculinity.

Keywords

masculinities care COVID-19 caring masculinity protective masculinity

Introduction

The gendered reflection over implications of the COVID-19 pandemic has been subjected to complex and multidimensional discussions over biological, behavioral, societal, and cultural factors that influence men’s, women’s and non-binary persons’ lives in the time of the pandemic¹. The early data from several countries regarding gender implications of COVID-19 have suggested that cis-men are more likely to die from infection (Purdie et al., 2020; White, 2020). This has been confirmed in a paper published in December 2020, where the authors claim that “(…) male patients have almost three times the odds of requiring intensive treatment unit (ITU) admission (…) and higher odds of death” (Peckham et al., 2020:1). This has been explained by several biological factors that cannot be discussed here due to lack of expertise, as well as behavioral and lifestyle choices mostly characteristic of men, including risky behaviors such us higher rates of smoking (Kodriati et al., 2018) and drugs and alcohol consumption (Yang et al., 2019). Moreover, men are more inclined to contest pandemic-related restrictions, and are less willing to apply preventive measures such as hand-washing (Mora and Del Valle, 2016), consulting on health issues with professionals (Scambor et al., 2014) and in particular, mask wearing (Umamaheswar and Tan, 2020). It has to be underlined, however, that these factors cannot be applied to the whole population of men, as they are not a homogenous social category, and thus an intersectional approach (Crenshaw, 1989; Hill Collins and Bilge, 2016; Christensen and Jensen, 2019) with the application of racial, class, age and dis/ability lenses, needs to be considered.

This paper focusses on the gendered aspects of COVID-19 pandemic related to men and takes into account studies where men, masculinities and societal issues and implications of the current pandemic are discussed. Such discussions refer to, among others, general issues linking masculinities and the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Ruxton and Burrell, 2020); risk and masculinity in the time of health crises (Mellström, 2020) men and caring activities (Kreyenfeld and Zinn, 2020); men and mask wearing (Capraro and Barcelo, 2020); hegemonic forms of masculine political leadership in times of crisis (Johnson and Williams, 2020); and male perpetration of domestic violence under lockdowns (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020). It has to be noted however, that studies focused on men, masculinities and current health crisis have not developed in vacuum, as for many years scholarly reflection on relationship between men, masculinities and health issues has been an important part of critical men and masculinities scholarship. These have been analyzed from general perspective (Broom and Tovey, 2009; Gough and Robertson, 2010; Sabo and Gordon, 1995) but also with a special focus on theorizing men’s health and placing it in the wider societal context (Courtney, 2009; Courtney, 2000) or paying attention on specific men’s health issues such as mental health and depression (Gough, 2018) or problems with prostate (Johnson, 2021) to name a few.

Coming back to the COVID19 pandemic, the number of studies focused on its implication for men is growing, and the connections between masculinity performances and attitudes towards the pandemic and its implications are analysed from different angles. These studies are mostly limited to the analysis of empirical data and the reporting of specific, data-related conclusions, while lacking in-depth theoretical discussions. This is understandable, as the phenomena under consideration are rather fresh. However, given the number of studies already existing, the main goals of this paper are to 1) provide a literature review of studies where relationships between men’s responses to the COVID-19 crisis linked to (a lack of) care-related activities are discussed, and 2) based on literature review, to contribute to theoretical discussions on masculinities models that seem to be of importance in light of the pandemic, with a special focus on theorizing caring masculinity and protective masculinity. My analytical strategy is to unravel the two key dimensions of activities that are commonly associated with care, understood as non-hierarchical and power-free relationship between individuals. Following research by other authors I claim that there is crucial distinction between care and protection. Whereas the latter is deeply entangle in power relations and at such has linked to the hegemonic forms of masculine practices and discourses (Connell, 2005), the former is associated with progressive caring masculinity (Elliott, 2016). Such differentiation is pivotal given the common misunderstandings of the concept of care, where male protectiveness or breadwinning are sometimes defined as such (see Tronto, 2013; Doucet, 2020) and hence, the issue of power, the most crucial dimension in the critical men and masculinities studies, is somehow neglected. Hence, to unpack the complexity of relations between masculinities, health, care and protection, the text has a threefold structure: I first give an overview of my theoretical approach, focusing on operationalization of the concept of care; this is followed by an overview of theorizing of caring masculinity and the introduction of the concept of protective masculinity. This is supplemented by methodological note. Subsequently, in the Results section I present the most significant findings where relations between men and caring/protection practices are analysed in three dimensions: self-care, caring for significant others, caring for the society. Furthermore, in the discussion, I use concepts of caring masculinities and protective masculinities in order to better understand the nature of male practices and discourses that emerged during COVID19 pandemic. I conclude by suggesting that performing traditional, hegemonic forms of masculinity in general, and protective masculinity in particular, can be seen as obstacles in coping with global health crisis and that only progressive, caring forms of masculinities can help in overcoming it.

Theoretical approach and methodology

According to Tronto, care is a highly complex phenomenon with “(…) a dual set of meanings. It refers both to a mental disposition and the actual practices that we engage in as a result of these concerns” (1998: 16). She introduces a typology distinguishing care into four main dimensions: caring about – which concerns attentiveness and awareness of other people’s needs; caring for – taking responsibility for taking care of others’ needs and showing a willingness to fulfill certain tasks; caregiving – the actual, physical and emotional performance of such activities; and care receiving – being the recipient of caregiving. In this particular paper I supplement these with a model of care inspired by Engster’s findings and divide care into: a) self-care, b) care for others, and c) care for one’s society (2009).The first type of care refers to taking care of one’s own physical and emotional health and recognizing the importance of work-life balance. In this context, a single person is at the same time a caregiver and a care-receiver. The second type includes activities such as taking care of children (e.g. during parental leave or homeschooling) in both the qualitative and quantitative senses, and providing care for sick and elderly. This type includes both paid and unpaid care work, but for the purposes of this particular paper, the focus will be exclusively on unpaid activities. Finally, taking care of society may take a variety of forms, from voluntary work, social activism, and political engagement (including leadership styles), to work surrounding environmental issues.

My take on masculinities, driven by the analysis of existing social studies on men and COVID-19, focuses on two concepts recently developing in European academia. The first one is the caring masculinity introduced by Hanlon (2012) in his study on the caring activities of Irish men, where he analyses men’s engagement and attitudes to the caring work with a special focus on both physical and emotional aspects of care and their meaning in men’s lives. The concept has been further developed by scholars analyzing the role of men in gender equality in Europe (Scambor et al., 2014) with an emphasis on men’s paid care work (Scambor et al., 2015), paternal roles (Graf and Wojnicka, 2021) and used in the analysis of men’s practices in the area of food production (Fidolini, 2021) or male friendship (Elliott, 2020). Finally, the concept has been popularized by Elliott (2016), who summarized caring masculinity’s main theoretical assumptions. At the core of this concept lies the principle that men are no longer disconnected from traditional feminine practices, particularly those concentrated on caring activities. Moreover, caring and nurturing have become legitimised and valued elements of new, alternative male identities, and there is a growing number of social groups and institutions accepting these new ways of performing/defining masculinities (Hanlon, 2012). Therefore, this particular model of gender performance is now seen as one of the most emancipatory ways of doing masculinity as it entails “(…) rejection of domination and the integration of values derived from the realm of care such as positive emotion, interdependence, and relationality” (Elliott, 2016: 13). In this sense, caring masculinity can be understood as not only oppositional to hegemonic and patriarchal ways of defining and performing masculinity, but as one of the most pivotal contributions to gender equality (Scambor et al., 2014).

The second theoretical concept utilised in this paper is protective masculinity. According to some scholars, caring masculinity can be seen as oppositional to hegemonic masculinity (Elliott, 2016; Robinson, 2011). However, such a direct link cannot be drawn without in-depth analysis of all the meanings and understandings of care that have already been signalized. Tronto (2013), again, proposes a more nuanced analysis of the relationship between (hegemonic, traditional) masculinity and care, claiming that some elements of care are in fact part of the definition of hegemonic masculinity, as (for some) breadwinning and protection can be seen as masculine forms of care. Therefore, building on Tronto’s theoretical contribution to the discussions on care and masculinity, Connell’s theorizing of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005), Young’s discussion on chivalry and masculinity (2003) and on my research on European fathers’ rights movements (Wojnicka, 2020) and Polish migrant men (Wojnicka and Nowicka, 2021), I have further developed the concept of protective masculinity (Wojnicka, 2021). The concept was first introduced by Johnson, who defines it as type of male performance centred “(…) around conceptions of strong, tough men protecting women and children, and sometimes other men as well, from diverse threats to their security” (2013: 16). In this context, protective masculinity is a particular form of hegemonic masculinity understood as “men’s patriarchal dominance over women” (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005) and children, and other individuals. Therefore, it is mostly linked to external hegemony (Demetriou, 2001), but in some cases it entails elements of internal hegemony as well. At the core of protective masculinity, in the same way as in the more generally understood hegemonic masculinity, are physical power and male economic dominance associated with the role of breadwinner. Hence, providing financial and/or physical protection to dependent women and children is not seen as a male form of caring, but strictly as providing protection, which is not, as in the case of caring masculinity, a power-free and non-hierarchical activity. On the contrary, it can be defined as a contract (at least in the perception of protector) where protected groups and individuals are subordinated to the protector, which constitutes natural link to the hegemonic masculinity concept. This is a crucial distinction, as caring masculinity implies “(…) the rejection of domination (…) and the inclusion of care means giving up the privileges and power” (Elliott, 2015: 254), while power and control in protective masculinity is inevitable and strictly defined, in favor of men. The protectors define their roles as the ultimate sacrifice, as men are those who minister dependent women, children and other subordinated individuals, making immense efforts to provide them with safety and protection. In exchange, however, “(…) protected individuals need to recognize and accept the authority of the protector and their own subordination. Otherwise, the dissenting person or a group can be denied protection” (Wojnicka, 2021: 3). The perfect example of protective masculinity discourse can be identified among some activists of the European fathers’ rights groups. In their endeavor for (re)claiming their fatherly rights after separation with female partners, these fathers refer to the need of protecting their children from “stranger man” eg. new partners of their children’s mothers, rather than taking more caring responsibilities such as spending more time with their children, helping them with homework or changing diapers. Such framing of protector role implies and underlines existence of hierarchies not only between men and women, but also between men themselves, which constitutes another link to Connell’s theorizing (1995). The notion of “protection of our women” from other men is also an important plot in the narratives produced by Polish migrant men (Wojnicka and Nowicka, 2021). This protection is self-proclaimed and in exchange, the women, despite not being interested in receiving it, must subordinate, which means stop dating non-Polish men and choose partners only from their own national community. Hence, protection cannot be seen as a synonym of care, and protective masculinity, despite the ostensible similarities, in fact stands in direct opposition to caring masculinity.

Methodologically, the paper draws on studies and secondary data generated by other researchers working on the dynamics between men, masculinities and the COVID-19 pandemic from social science perspective. To find the most relevant studies, four online databases were searched: Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and Gothenburg University Library. I searched for peer-reviewed papers published between January 2020 and February 2021, while focusing on papers written in English, German and Polish using English keywords such as “masculinity + COVID-19”, “masculinities + COVID-19”, “masculinity and corona”, “masculinities + corona”, “masculinity + pandemic”, “masculinities + pandemic”, “fathers + COVID-19”; “fatherhood + COVID-19”; “fathers + pandemic”; “fatherhood + pandemic”; “fatherhood + corona”; and “fathers + corona”, along with their counterparts in the two other languages. I specifically avoided using terms such as “men and COVID-19” assuming that such framing would mostly direct me to papers of a medical nature. Explicit use of the terms “masculinity/masculinities, “father/fatherhood” directed me to social science papers. The database search resulted in 46 peer-reviewed articles. From the publications available through the Gothenburg University Library meeting the set criteria, further searches were made through the publications’ reference lists. I screened them by reading abstracts and sometimes conclusions in order to find out issues linked to care and finally I narrowed the number of papers to 24. I also decided to include in my analyses a non-peer-reviewed report on masculinities and COVID-19 published in 2020 by PROMUNDO, where the most important issues surrounding the discussed problem are outlined (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020).

Masculine caring activities during COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 and male self-care

According to the current data, men’s life expectancy is still shorter than women’s in every society (Thornton, 2019). This has been explained by, again, a number of biological factors, but also traditional masculinity traits that negatively influence men’s health (Scambor et al., 2014). In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, where prevention is strongly connected to maintaining a high level of hygiene, men’s self-care seems to be hampered by not giving enough consideration to hand-washing, as research suggests that men are failing to wash their hands at much higher rates than women (Borchgrevink et al., 2013). This tendency has not changed during the current pandemic. In a quantitative study conducted by Liu, Feng, Liao et al. (2020) men wash their hands less frequently than women (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.85–3.09, P <.001). Also according to the research conducted by Umamaheswar and Tan (2020) on risk attitudes among men and women during the COVID-19 pandemic men are more likely to ignore prevention measures to a larger extent than women. Drawing on data collected during longitudinal qualitative project, where 120 individual interviews were conducted, the authors argue that “Men’s relaxed attitudes, on the other hand, are not simply a reflection of their efforts not to appear “weak” (…); instead, these attitudes also reflect their protection from the unique and burdensome care work demands generated by a global pandemic” (2020: 1–2). One of the important observations here considers the fact that men tend to take prevention measures more seriously when they are involved in activities that include caring for other people. This suggests that single men, without such responsibilities, are less likely to take care of themselves and tend to comply with the traditionally perceived model of masculinity, where being tough and brave is more valued than being circumspect. Bravery, or rather its public manifestation, is especially visible in the context of wearing masks in public spaces, where men are more likely than women to avoid their use (Capraro and Barcelo, 2020). In fact, papers discussing this particular issue dominate in the selected literature, and some findings have led researchers to coin the term (toxic) mask-ulinity (Palmer and Peterson, 2020; Mahalik, Bianca and Harris, 2021). Utilizing a quantitative survey (n = 805; 61% male and 39% female) among men and women, Palmer and Peterson concluded that attitudes with regard to wearing masks are determined by gender, and men have more negative feelings regarding its use. Negative attitudes with regard to masks are correlated with the perception of masculine norms, and findings suggest that “(…) men and women who embrace masculine norms of toughness are equally likely to feel negative affective responses toward the idea of wearing masks” (2020: 1049) while among those who embrace such norms, men are the dominant gender. Similar findings can be found in a paper on mask-wearing and toxic masculinity, based on three quantitative data sets, each with n > 560 research participants (Howard, 2021). The main conclusion of this study refers to the gendered perception regarding mask-wearing.The authors claim that women’s negative perceptions are linked to masks being uncomfortable, while men’s negative attitudes to this prevention measure stem from the perception of masks as infringing upon their independence (2021: 3). The latter is strongly connected to traditional masculine norms, where freedom and individualism are valued more than safety and collective interests (Eastman, 2011). The connection between negative attitudes towards wearing a face mask and the actual refusal to wear them and cultivation of traditional masculinity performances have been also confirmed by Casino and Besen-Cassino (2020) in their study based on a survey conducted in 2020 on an overall sample size of 1003 Americans. Similar conclusions can also be found in a quantitative study conducted by Mahalik, Bianca and Harris (2021) as well as in an essay by Ng (2020) on COVID-19, mask-wearing, masculinity and nation. Finally, men are less likely to consult on their health condition with doctors (Scambor et al., 2014), which may result in ignoring severe symptoms of COVID-19, putting their lives in greater danger. In support of this thesis, White cites the results of a survey conducted in 2020 in the United Kingdom where “(…) nearly a quarter of British men (24%) inaccurately believe coronavirus is ‘just like the flu’ compared with 16% of women” (2020: 19).

Men’s care for significant others in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic

With regard to care for one’s family members, the most popular manner of defining care, men and women differ significantly. Today in the European Union, men are still less dedicated to care in the family than women are. According to the European Institute for Gender Equality database, 37.5% of women and 24.7% of men in the EU care for and educate their children or grandchildren and attend to elderly people or people with disabilities on a daily basis, with the widest gender gaps identified in Poland and Romania and the narrowest in Latvia and Sweden (EIGE, 2019). Similar data can be found in OECD database (2021). On average, in all OECD countries, men spent 136,5 min per day on un-paid work that includes “routine housework; shopping; care for household members; child care; adult care; care for non-household members; volunteering; travel related to household activities; other unpaid activities” (OECD 2021) while women share was 263,4 min. The largest gaps were identified in Turkey (67, 6 and 305 min) and Japan (40,8 and 224,3) while the smallest in Sweden (171 and 220 min) and Denmark (186,1 and 242,8). Among non-OECD countries, the larger disproportions were found in India, where men spend on average 51,8 min per day on unpaid work, while women 351,9 min.

In all cases, women are those who are expected to engage in such activities, and they do fulfill these expectations more frequently than men. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this disproportion in caring activities is even more acute. In many countries schools and kindergartens have been (temporarily) closed and children require not only regular care, but also the additional time and attention required by, for example, homeschooling. The same applies to care for elderly people, who are a risk groups and need more help than before (e.g. with grocery shopping). Data regarding gender time-sharing allow us to assume that men engage in such activities to a lesser extent than women, despite the fact that in many cases, due to the (temporary) lockdowns parents work from home and, in theory, fathers have more opportunities to take care of children.²³ The bulk of the recent studies suggest that although both parents have increased their time spent with children during the current pandemic (compared to previous years), mothers still do the lion’s share when it comes to childcare, household chores, and taking responsibility for home education (Heggeness and Fields, 2020; Carlson, Petts and Pepin, 2020). The results of a study conducted by a team of international researchers suggest, however, that differences in fathers’ (still lower) engagement can be identified by applying a cross-national, comparative approach and looking at different gender regimes (Ruppanner et al., 2021). Based on data collected from “(…) parents from the YouGov (a global leader in survey research) panels in Australia and the United States in May and September 2020” (2021: 3), the authors discovered that while in the Australian context the pandemic has, so far, resulted in the erosion of traditional gender roles, in the United States the increased caring requirements have reinforced the traditional gender order (2021) and have not positively influenced engagement in caring activities among fathers. Other studies confirm the unambiguity of the issue of care and fatherhood in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a quantitative investigation conducted in Germany where data from a subsample of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) from 2019 and 2020 were used “(…) respondents who were sharing a household unit with children aged 0 to 11 years old” (Kreyenfeld and Zinn, 2021:104) were asked how much time they spend with their children. The results suggest that both parents increased the time they spend with their offspring (women from 6.7 to 9.6 and men from 2.8 to 5.3 h per day). Among fathers who declared the least significant change in their time spent with their children in 2019 and 2020 those with higher education dominate, while the “(…)coronavirus crisis pushed fathers with low or medium levels of education towards greater involvement with their children” (2021: 110). This particular finding challenges the previous studies’ results which found that fathers with higher education and representatives of the middle classes (and higher) were seen as the “(…) vanguards of involved fatherhood” (2021:116). Quantitative results suggest that fathers’ involvement in childcare increased a bit, but cannot be compared to the increase in mothers’ time spend on unpaid caring activities. Similar conclusions can be drawn while reading the findings of qualitative studies, where fathers’ (and mothers too) create narratives about changes that have occurred in their parenting styles after COVID19 pandemic started. In the paper based on auto-ethnographic approach, a male Spanish researcher through daily notes made in his ‘body journal’ reflects on how the COVID19 pandemic impacts his ways of performing masculinity and fatherhood practices. As much as the time spent with his son increased under pandemic, the caring activities performed by his female partner dominate narrative around current parenting hardships (González-Calvo, 2020). The same pattern can be identified in the narratives of seven young Hispanic fathers, conducted by the team of researchers from the University of Texas (Recto and Lesser, 2020). Such dynamic is also echoed in the qualitative studies conducted by Italian researchers, where 10 heterosexual couples were asked about changes in the caring activities that have arisen after introduction of remote work. The conclusion of the paper is that despite changed context, different work arrangements and crises-like situation, male and female gender roles reminded unchanged and “the division of care duties has remained strongly gendered and unbalanced between men and women, even in the most egalitarian couples, while in less egalitarian ones inequalities have tended to exacerbate.” (Cannito and Scavarda, 2020: 816)

The issue of men’s (lack of) care for family members would not be complete without flagging the problem of domestic violence, as its levels have increased as a consequence of the lockdown. According to some preliminary data from several European countries, these levels have increased by about 17% – 30% (Dlamini, 2020; Ruxton and Burrell, 2020). Given the fact that men constitute a vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence (Wojnicka, 2015), masculinity performances are negatively influencing the pandemic situation. In her paper under the revealing title “Gender-Based Violence, Twin Pandemic to COVID-19”, Dlamini claims that the pandemic can be seen as doubly dangerous for women, as their well-being, health and lives are at risk not only due to the COVID-19 virus, but also the gender-based violence, perpetrated by men (Dlamini, 2020).

Masculinity and care for the society in the time of the global health crisis

Last but not least, men’s care for the society in the pandemic can be illustrated by their taking up a variety of social activities. It can be reflected in (not) applying preventative measures, especially in public spaces, which is exemplified by the already discussed notion of mask-ulinity. It can also be reflected in voluntary work and helping one’s community, as one of the positive results of the pandemic is an increase of solidarity and the emergence of community-based self-help groups (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020). For example, a volunteer group of citizens known as Widzialna Ręka (Visible Hand) has been active in Poland since March 2020. The initiative started as a Facebook group for people offering their services to help others in the time of crisis. The services include grocery shopping, transportation, care for pets, and exchange of goods, but they also offer courses and entertainment for the community. As of now Widzialna Ręka has dozens of Facebook groups with 109,000 participants, but 80% of them are women and only 20% men (…). The underrepresentation of men has been also reported in self-help groups of migrants affected by COVID-19 in India (Yadav, 2020) and the UK where “(…) women are more likely than men to have participated in community support activities: 44 percent of women say they have contacted someone lonely or vulnerable compared to 33 percent of men. Additionally, 78 percent of women have checked in on friends and family to ensure they are OK compared to 63 percent of men; 21 percent of women have delivered supplies to someone self-isolating compared to 16 percent of men” (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020: 34).

Furthermore, men are majority in institutional politics, and dominate analyses of the responses to the crisis among leading politicians in selected countries form a significant corps of COVID-19 and masculinity-related studies. One of the most commonly analyzed cases is the leadership style of Donald Trump and his erratic attitude(s) towards the pandemic. According to Messerschmidt (2020) the USA’s ex-president’s masculinity style can be defined as dominating, as it “(…) involves commanding and controlling specific interactions, and exercising power and control over people and events” (2020:1). His actions can be seen as a flagship example of a failure “(…) to construct a caring masculinity (Elliott, 2015) that recognizes the horrors of this virus, sympathizes with those infected, respects all human life, and involves a meticulous national strategy for testing, tracing, and isolating as well as masking and maintaining physical distance” (Messerschmidt, 2020:4). Trump is usually compared to other leaders whose responses to the crisis have shifted from initial neglect to, after it became clear that the virus is deadly dangerous, war-like narratives (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020; Forester and O’Brien, 2020) where terms such as “enemy”, ‘”battle” and “frontline” have been used. Among such leaders, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson and Victor Orban are usually singled out (Alcadipani, 2020). Common to them is a populist, right-wing political orientation and the performance of those types of masculinity where power, domination and imposing ones’ authority are typical. Moreover, their responses are emotionally charged with aggression and lack of empathy, and they are framed as oppositional to those of selected female leaders’ responses, which are defined as more open to collaboration and empathetic, and are focused on caring narratives in their “for” and “about” aspects (Harsin, 2020).

Discussion

Men, masculinities and pandemic - between care and protection

This overview of studies where links between masculinities and COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of social settings are discussed clearly indicates that performing certain types of male identities influences the way men are experiencing the pandemic. This massive public health crisis has highlighted the importance of care understood as self-care and care for others, revealing that men’s attitudes to care and engagement in caring activities is a crucial element of crisis (mis)management. Drawing on Tronto’s typology (1998), men seem to be the most engaged in the third meaning of care, namely, caregiving, especially in the context of taking care of their own children. All the here presented studies indicate that since the beginning of the pandemic, fathers have been spending significantly more time with their children. It is especially interesting that men who did not spend much time with their offspring before the crisis, working class men with lower and middle levels of education (Kreyenfeld and Zinn, 2021), have increased their involvement the most This may suggest that the pandemic has created an opportunity to transform men’s parenting models and has enabled some men to become more involved in caring activities and through that re-negotiate their gender identity towards caring masculinity (Margaria; 2021). This optimism, however, stems from the first read of data and needs to be confirmed by more studies, preferably of qualitative character. Most of the existing research into fathers’ involvement in caregiving is quantitative, and it refers mostly to time spent with children. How this particular time is used is still under-researched as even in the qualitative studies there is little space in the narratives about it as emotional well-being of research participants as well as their struggles with paid work responsibilities dominate. Given the fact that mothers’ engagement in childcare has increased as well, researchers should focus on collecting more in-depth and nuanced data that contribute to testing the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic is having a positive influence on any possible popularization of caring masculinity.

More research with qualitative approach is also necessary in light of further discussion with regard to two other understandings of care: caring about, where awareness of the needs of other people is a crucial factor, as well as caring for, exemplified by taking responsibility for fulfilling these needs (Tronto, 1998). At first glance, the latter seems to be observed among certain groups of men. Men appear to be taking more responsibility not only as fathers, but also as leaders who declare their willingness to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the war-like narratives of some leaders suggest that they are unable to recognize the real needs of the societies they are leading, so caring about and caring for are not elements of their (masculine) performances. Instead, they seem to be reinforcing protective masculinity (Johnson and Williams, 2020), as they require subordination and recognition of their individual authority in exchange for “saving people from the virus”. Such a stance is oppositional to recognizing the needs of citizens (who need care and not protection) and building collaborations with experts, care workers and other essential actors, whose collective effort is the only effective way to cope with the crisis. Such a stance is connected to undertaking incidental actions and focusing on a specific type of rhetoric highlighting the importance of the protector’s persona instead of the routine, daily-based care which is an attribute of caring masculinity, and is not boasted about.

The prevalence of protective masculinity also seems to be observed in the context of an increase in gender-based violence. Drawing on data from research on European fathers’ rights mobilization, I have noticed that men who express this type of male gender identity tend to demonize the threat of violence against women and children perpetrated outside the family (usually by male strangers), while at the same time they give themselves right to discipline dependent members of the family if they disobey. By analogy, one can hypothesize that the increase in domestic violence perpetrated by men can be, among others, an effect of the performance of protective masculinity. Violent men may justify their abusive behaviors by their (authoritarian) attempts at protecting family members from external danger, as exemplified by the COVID-19 virus, and a lack of subordination can be seen as obstructive to their attempts at protecting the family, so they must be disciplined. This results in a situation where “(…) domestic dynamics [are] marked by positions of command, order, and honor” (Medrado et al., 2021: 181). Obviously, this hypothesis, along with that referring to proliferation of the caring masculinity model, requires further research. Finally, the last component of care, care receiving, seems to be rather difficult to reflect on in the context of men and masculinity. There is a scarcity of data focused on men as care receivers during the pandemic, and one can only imply that the observed higher tendency among men to ignore or contest preventive measures indicates a problem with accepting the role of care receiver.

As mentioned in the introduction, this paper attempts to contribute to theoretical discussions on transformations of masculinities observed during COVID-19 pandemic, defined as critical and framed as a specific historical event (Tosh, 2005) “(…) that influences changes in men’s practices, masculinities performances and (re)negotiations” (Wojnicka, 2021:1). Such discussions are infrequent, however, and only a handful of authors refer to some established and emerging concepts that may shed light on the current situation. In his analysis of Trump’s leadership style, Messerschmidt (2020) attempts to apply the concept of dominant masculinity (2016), but since it lacks in-depth analysis of power, control and dependency dynamics, I do not find it of particular use. Others (Harisn, 2020; Frąckowiak-Sochańska, 2021) refer to toxic masculinity as a concept, which I do not find applicable either, given its theoretical shortcomings pointed out by critical men and masculinities scholars (de Boise, 2019), which I agree with. Therefore, I have proposed the concept of protective masculinity, defined as a particular type of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) oppositional to caring masculinity (Elliott, 2016). The formercontains elements of most traditional forms of masculinity framed as being “(..) marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression [which] is, on the whole, harmful” and “actively damaging to both others (violence, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic or racist bullying, sexual assault or harassment) and the people themselves who subscribe to such gendered constructs (excessive drinking, physical injuries from fighting, steroids, body dysmorphia, drug-taking, inability to express emotions)“ (Pappas, 2019). Finally, it is associated with sexism, which “(…) predicts lower levels of concern about the coronavirus, lower levels of engagement in precautionary behaviors, lower levels of support for state and local pandemic policies, and ultimately higher levels of COVID-19 sickness. Sexism is among the strongest correlates of these outcomes, stronger even than partisanship, ideology, gender, and education” (Reny, 2020: 1029) and hence can be a useful theoretical tool in analyses of gendered aspects of the current health crisis.

Conclusions

The first purpose of this paper is to analyze existing research exploring men’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic as they relate to care. The second aim is to contribute to the theoretical discussion on masculinities models that have been subjected to certain transformations caused by the health crisis, with a special focus on concepts of caring masculinity and protective masculinity. The data and discussion presented above suggest that traditional, hegemonic forms of masculinity in general, and protective masculinity in particular, can be seen not only as unaccustomed to times of crisis, but even as an obstacle in coping with it. Such forms of masculinities do not represent added value: they create additional burdens such as increased domestic violence and refusal to take proper care of oneself and others. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to be providing further evidence that such a models of gender identity needs to be replaced by another, less harmful and more progressive forms of gender performance: caring masculinity. Proliferation of caring masculinity not only increases the level of gender equality in a society, benefitting women, other genders, children and men themselves, but it seems to be a necessity in times of crisis such the one we are coping with right now, as non-progressive forms of masculinity are only making the situation worse. Therefore, the current COVID-19 pandemic situation can be seen as both a challenge and an opportunity to the creation of a more (gender) egalitarian society.

Obviously, the study is subjected to several major limitations. The data are still scarce and are mostly quantitative, which does not allow for conducting more in-depth, nuanced analysis linking men, masculinities and (lack of) care in light of the public health crisis. Moreover, the available data, with a few exceptions, refer to the western European, North American and Australian contexts, with the dynamics of other societies sorely under-researched. Additionally, aside from some brief discussions about the importance of class (Kreyenfeld and Zinn, 2021; White, 2020), age (White, 2020), and race (Forester and O’Brien, 2020; Harsin, 2020), discussions on men, masculinities and COVID-19 suffer from cisgender, White, heterosexual, middle-class, Western biases. Considering all of this, the next step is to conduct (qualitative) studies through an intersectional lens.

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 iD

Katarzyna Wojnicka

References

Alcadipani

(2020) Pandemic and macho organizations: wake-up call or business as usual? Gender Work and Organisation 27: 734–746.

Borchgrevink

Cha

Kim

(2013) Hand washing practices in a college town environment. Advancement of the Science 75/8: 18–24.

Broom

Tovey

(2009) Men’s Health: Body, identity, and social context. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cannito

Scavarda

(2020) Childcare and remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideal worker model, parenthood and gender inequalities in Italy. Italian Sociological Review 10(3S): 801–820.

Capraro

Barcelo

(2020) The Effect of Messaging and Gender on Intentions to Wear a Face Covering to Slow Down COVID-19 Transmission. PsyArXiv. Retrieved September 30, 2020. https://psyarxiv.com/tg7vz/.

Carlson

Petts

Pepin

(2020) US Couples’ divisions of housework and childcare during COVID-19 pandemic. SocAirXiv. May 6. doi: 1–41. DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/jy8fn.

Casino

Besen-Cassino

(2020) Of masks and Men? Gender, Sex, and protective measures during COVID-19. Politics and Gender 16(2020): 1052–1062.

Christensen

A-D

Jensen

(2019) Intersectionality. In: Gottzen

Mellström

Shefer

(eds) International Handbook for Masculinity Studies. New York: Routledge, 82–92.

Connell

(1995) Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10.

Connell

R W

(2005) Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.

11.

Connell

R W

Messerschmidt

J W

(2005) Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender and Society 19(6): 829–859.

12.

Courtenay

(2000) Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science and Medicine 50(10): 1385–1401.

13.

Courtenay

(2009) Theorising masculinity and men’s health. In: Broom

Tovey

(eds) Men’s Health: Body, Identity and Social Context. Blackwell: Wiley, 9–32.

14.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and Sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1(8): 139–167.

15.

De Boise

(2019) Editorial: Is masculinity toxic? NORMA 14(3): 147–151.

16.

Dlamini

(2020) Gender-based violence, twin pandemic to covid-19. Critical Sociology: 089692052097546.

17.

Doucet

(2020) Father Involvement, Care, and Breadwinning: Genealogies of Concepts and Revisioned Conceptual Narratives. Genealogy 4(1): 14.

18.

Elliott

(2016) ‘Caring masculinities’. Theorizing an emerging concept. Men and Masculinities 19(3): 240–259.

19.

Elliott

(2020) Young Men Navigating Contemporary Masculinities. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Engster

(2009) Rethinking care theory: The practice of caring and the obligation to care. Hypatia 20(3): 50–74.

21.

Fidolini

(2021) Eating like a man. Food, masculinities and self-care behavior. Food, Culture & Society. DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2021.1882795.

22.

Forester

O’Brien

(2020) Antidemocratic and exclusionary practices: COVID-19 and the Continuum of violence. Politics & Gender 16: 1150–1157.

23.

Frąckowiak-Sochańska

(2021) Men and social trauma of COVID-19 panemic. The maladaptiveness of toxic masculinity. Society Register 5(1): 73–94.

24.

González-Calvo

(2020) Narrative Reflections on Masculinity and Fatherhood during Covid-19 Confinement in Spain. Societies 10(2): 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10020045.

25.

Gough

(2018) Contemporary masculinities: Embodiment, emotion and wellbeing. Cham, Switzerland: This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature.

26.

Gough

Robertson

(2010) Men, Masculinities and Health: Critical Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Graf

Wojnicka

(2021) Post-separation fatherhood narratives in Germany and Sweden: Between caring and protective masculinities. Journal of Family Studies: 1–21.

28.

Hanlon

(2012) Masculinities, Care and Equality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

29.

Harsin

(2020) Toxic white masculinity, post-truth politics and the COVID-19 infodemic. European Journal of Cultural Studies 23(6): 1060–1068.

30.

Heggeness

Fields

(2020) Working Moms Bear Brunt of Home Schooling While Working During COVID-19. U. S. Census Bureau. August 18. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/08/parents-juggle-work-and-child-care-duringpandemic.html.

31.

Hill Collins

Bilge

(2016) Intersectionality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

32.

Howard

(2021) Gender, face mask perceptions, and face mask wearing: Are men being dangerous during the COVID-19 pandemic? Personality And Individual Differences 170: 110417.

33.

Johnson

(2013) From Obama to abbot. Australian Feminist Studies 28(75): 14–29.

34.

Johnson

Williams

(2020) Gender and political leadership in a time of COVID. Politics & Gender 16(4): 943–950.

35.

Johnson

(2021) A Cultural Biography of the Prostate. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

36.

Kodriati

Pursell

Nur Hayati

(2018) A scoping review of men, masculinities, and smoking behavior: The importance of settings. Global Health Action 11(3): 37–48.

37.

Kreyenfeld

Zinn

(2021) Coronavirus and care: How the coronavirus crisis affected fathers’ involvement in Germany. Demographic Research 44(4): 99–124.

38.

Liu

Zhang

Yang

, et al. (2020) Prevalence and patterns of tobacco smoking among Chinese adult men and women: Findings of the 2010 national smoking survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71(2).

39.

Mahalik

Bianca

Harris

(2021) Men’s attitudes toward mask-wearing during COVID-19: understanding the complexities of mask-ulinity. Journal of Health Psychology. Feb 10;1359105321990793 doi: 10.1177/1359105321990793. Online ahead of print

40.

Medrado

Lyra

Nascimento

, et al. (2021) Homens E masculinidades e o novo coronavírus: Compartilhando Questões de Gênero na Primeira Fase da Pandemia. Ciência and Saúde Coletiva 26(1): 179–183.

41.

Mellström

(2020) COVID-19, masculinity and risk/at risk. NORMA 15(2): 94–96.

42.

Messerschmidt

(2020) Donald Trump, dominating masculine Necropolitics, and covid-19. Men and Masculinities 24(1): 189–194.

43.

Mora

Del Valle

(2016) A meta-analysis of the association between gender and protective behaviors in response to respiratory epidemics and pandemics. PLoS One 11(10): 1–25.

44.

Ng (2020) Unmasking masculinity: Considering gender, science, and nation in responses to covid-19. Feminist Studies 46(3): 694.

45.

Palmer

Peterson

(2020) Toxic mask-ulinity: The link between masculine toughness and affective reactions to mask wearing in the COVID-19 Era. Politics & Gender 16(4): 1044–1051.

46.

Pappas

(2019) APA Issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys. Monitor on Psychology 50(1), Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.

47.

Peckham

de Gruijter

Raine

, et al. (2020) Male sex identified by global COVID-19 meta-analysis as a risk factor for death and ITU admission. Nature Communications 11: 1–10.

48.

Purdie

Hawkes

Buse

, et al. (2020) ‘Sex, gender and COVID-19: disaggregated data and health disparities’. BMJ Global Health Blog. 24.03.2020.

49.

Recto

Lesser

(2020) Young Hispanic fathers during COVID-19: Balancing parenthood, finding strength, and maintaining hope. PHN Public Health Nursing 38(3): 367–373.

50.

Reny

(2020) Masculine norms and infectious disease: The case of COVID-19. Politics & Gender 16(2020): 1028–1035.

51.

Robinson

(2011) The Ethics of Care: A Feminist Approach to Human Security. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

52.

Ruppanner

Tan

Scarborough

, et al. (2021) Shifting inequalities? Parents’ sleep, anxiety, and calm during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and the United States. Men and Masculinities February 2021: 1–8.

53.

Ruxton

Burrell

(2020) Masculinities and COVID-19: Making the Connections. Washington, DC: Promundo-US.

54.

Sabo

Gordon

(1995) Men’s Health and Illness: Gender, Power, and the Body. SAGE Publications.

55.

Scambor

Bergmann

Wojnicka

, et al. (2014) Men and gender equality. Men and Masculinities 17(5): 552–577.

56.

Thornton

(2019) Who report shows that women Outlive Men Worldwide. BMJ: l1631.

57.

Tosh

(2005) Masculinities in an industrializing society: Britain, 1800–1914. Journal of British Studies 44(2): 330–342.

58.

Tronto

(1998) An ethic of care.”. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging 22(3): 15–20.

59.

Tronto

(2013) Caring Democracy. New York: New York University Press.

60.

Umamaheswar

Tan

(2020) “Dad, wash your hands”: gender, care work, and attitudes toward risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 6: 1–14.

61.

White

(2020) Men and COVID-19: The aftermath. Postgraduate Medicine 132: 18–27.

62.

Wojnicka

(2015) Men, masculinities and physical violence in contemporary Europe. Studia Humanistyczne AGH 14(2): 15–31.

63.

Wojnicka

(2020) Sex and the fieldwork: gender, sexuality, nationality and social class in research on European (heterosexual) Men. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1–10.

64.

Wojnicka

(2021) Men and masculinities in the time of crisis. Between care and protection. NORMA International Journal for Masculinity Studies 16(1): 1–5.

65.

Wojnicka

Nowicka

(2021) Understanding Migrants’ masculinity through An intersectional Lens. Men and Masculinities: 1–20.

66.

Yadav

(2020) Self-Help group (SHG) and COVID-19: Response to migrant crisis in Haryana, India during the pandemic. Social Work with Groups: 1–8.

67.

Yang

Lau

Zixin

, et al. (2019) Prevalence of binge drinking and relationships between masculine role discrepancy and binge drinking via discrepancy stress among Chinese men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 196: 57–61.