TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1120
Živa HUMER*
MEN’S EXPERIENCES OF GENDER (IN)EQUALITY  
AS A PRIMARY OR SINGLE PARENT 
Abstract. This article points to ambivalent discourses 
about contemporary fatherhood where the feminist and 
gender equality discourse stands for equality in parent-
ing, while fathers’ rights groups call for an essentialist 
understanding of gender roles. Despite the gender-
neutral legislation in Slovenia, the institutions follow 
an essentialist discourse when granting fathers child 
custody. An analysis of 12 interviews with fathers who 
are the primary child carer reveals the specific situa-
tions marginalised (unemployed, poor) masculinities 
encounter in their relationship with the complicit mas-
culinity (middle class) (Connell, 2005), while also draw-
ing attention to the structural inequalities the inter-
viewed men experience while pursuing their parental 
rights. In institutions, policies and everyday practices, 
men are perceived and treated as the secondary parent. 
Keywords: involved fatherhood, masculinities, gender 
equality, fathers’ rights groups
Introduction
Gender equality needs to address both genders in order to sustainably 
change predominant gender imbalances and inequalities in European soci-
eties (Scambor et al., 2013: 2).
In the last few decades, research and fatherhood studies in particular 
have shed light on the perceptions, trends and practices of fathering, point-
ing to both the transformation and pluralisation of fatherhood (Brandth and 
Kvande, 1998; Hobson, 2002), which must be viewed in the context of the 
wider changes occurring in masculinity (Hanlon, 2012; Scambor et al., 2015). 
The turn from the breadwinner model to caring fathers of the late moder-
nity is mostly denoted by a movement towards the sensitisation of fathering 
practices, which are linked with caring fatherhood practices (Hochschild, 
1995). However, apart from the rise of the dual-earner model and caring 
fatherhood in the last decades, findings showing the legitimisation of absent 
* Živa Humer, PhD, The Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, 
Metelkova 6, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1121
fathers are important for understanding masculinity and the pluralisation of 
fatherhood (Dermott, 2008). Absent fatherhood may be understood in the 
context of postmodern choices related to motherhood as the necessary con-
dition of parenthood (Švab, 2001) and in the context of the non-inclusion of 
fathers in childcare after divorce and separation (Dermott, 2008).
Understanding equality as forming the basis of modern societies that 
addresses women and men, this article examines the diverse experiences 
of men as fathers in their fatherhood roles and fathering,1 and while pursu-
ing their parental rights. It shows the inequalities and discrimination faced 
by fathers who are the primary child carer with full or shared child custody. 
In so doing, the article considers how masculinity and the establishment of 
male domination are comprehended, while noting Connell (2005) who says 
they operate through “configuration practices”. Male domination defines 
the hierarchies between women and men and within each of these social 
groups. Connell (2005: 76–81) elaborates its multi-layered functioning by 
introducing the concept of hegemonic masculinity and distinguishing four 
types of masculinity: hegemonic, subordinated, complicit and marginalised. 
The norms of how men should behave are congruent with the hegemonic 
masculinity that marginalises both women and men who do not meet the 
associated norms. 
Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender 
practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem 
of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guar-
antee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. 
(Connell, 2005: 77) 
Connell (2005: 78) places homosexual masculinities “at the bottom of 
gender hierarchy among men” as subordinated masculinities through prac-
tices like exclusion, hate speech, legal violence, street violence and dis-
crimination. While only a small share of men meets the hegemonic norms, 
most men benefit from the patriarchal dividends (such as income, access 
to power, ownership and property), which Connell defines as complicit 
masculinities (ibid.). Gender interacting with other structures, like class and 
race, develops relations between hegemonic and marginalised masculini-
ties (Connell, 2005: 122). 
1 Fathering refers to the care practices and relationships used in doing fatherhood. Fatherhood refers 
to identity and is formed through the institutional framework, legislation (such as legislation on marriage, 
intimate partner relationships and child custody) and welfare state policies that frame the relationship 
between the individual as a worker and as a parent (Hobson and Morgan, 2002). 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1122
Based on a qualitative study carried out within the Masculinities, Equality, 
Care Practices2 research project, the article shows how masculinities inter-
play with class, and how this collides with the institutional regulations of gen-
der relations and parenting in the policy framework (primary custody etc.) 
that influence, constrain and legitimate fatherhood and the care practices 
of fathers. The individual interviews with men who are the primary child 
carer illustrate how inequalities and discrimination appear. The first part of 
the article provides an overview of common points and confrontations of 
different discourses on fatherhood, bringing to the foreground aspects like 
the congruency of feminist critical reflections, the gender equality discourse 
on involved fatherhood, and studies on fatherhood, all of which recognise 
men’s greater involvement in childcare as a harbinger of wider changes in 
masculinities (Scambor et al., 2015). However, the feminist vision of equal-
ity, which is largely consistent with critical men’s studies and the gender 
equality discourse, collides with the anti-feminist discourse engaged in by 
fathers’ rights groups. We highlight the main differences among ambivalent 
discourses of fatherhood while critically reflecting on the role played by the 
state and its policies in framing fatherhood, particularly when granting child 
custody. In the second part, we present the methodological framework and 
analysis of the fathers’ narratives, their care practices and experiences with 
different institutions (centres for social work, courts of law) as they seek 
to acquire parental rights. The analysis reveals the specific situations mar-
ginalised (unemployed, poor) masculinities encounter in their relationship 
towards the complicit masculinity (heterosexual, middle class) and draws 
attention to the structural inequalities the interviewed men experience. 
Another interesting question appearing here that will be considered while 
looking at the empirical material is: What potential does involved father-
hood hold for gender equality? 
Feminist considerations about fatherhood and the unequal 
division of childcare
Gender inequality in sharing childcare has been extensively researched 
in critical femi nist theory. Numerous feminist authors regard the lack of care 
work being shared between men and women as a crucial impact of gender 
inequality in society (Oakley, 1980; Bubeck, 1995). The psychoanalytical 
approach has drawn much attention to feminist discourses about father-
hood (Chodorow, 1978), arguing that if men became as intensely involved 
2 The project Masculinities, Equality, Care Practices (2017–2020), funded by the Slovenian Research 
Agency, is being carried out by the Peace Institute in cooperation with the Faculty of Social Sciences of the 
University of Ljubljana. For more information on the project, see: http://www.mirovni-institut.si/en/pro-
jects/masculinities-equality-care-practices-mesp/.
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1123
in childcare as women this would give rise to gender-equal parenting and 
the transmission of care patterns that would not be exclusively linked to 
women being primary carers. 
The distribution of care and domestic work between women and men, 
and surveys on how time is used, are common focal points in feminist 
theories, gender studies and fatherhood studies. The rich feminist material 
critically highlights the finding that men are today more actively participat-
ing in childcare than men of the previous generation (Bianchi et al., 2000). 
Nevertheless, a growing number of studies report of that the gender gap 
in the division of care is only being closed slowly, mainly due to women’s 
reduced care work by virtue of their participation in the workforce, rather 
than, as would be expected, due to the greater participation of men (Kan et 
al., 2011). 
As Doucet and Lee (2014) emphasise, in the past 20 years gender research 
has focused on understanding the key obstacles that prevent men from 
more actively participating in care work, ranging from masculine norms 
(Deutsch, 1999), parental models (Coltrane, 1996), the ‘doing gender’ of 
mothers and fathers (Deutsch, 2007), embodiment in caregiving (Doucet, 
2009) through to maternal gatekeeping (Fagan and Barnett, 2003). Feminist 
social policy studies importantly complement these findings by revealing 
structural obstacles to involved fatherhood like the gendered segregation 
of the labour market, gendered organisations (Acker, 1990), the gender pay 
gap, employment, and family policies (Haas, 1993; Brandth and Kvande, 
2009). 
Anti-feminist discourse on fatherhood: romanticised hegemonic 
masculinity and the ideal of patriarchal authority 
While changes in masculinity leading towards gender equality in both 
the discourse and everyday practices of men are becoming ever more 
apparent, one cannot ignore the anti-feminist vision of the return of the 
‘real’ man and ‘father/patriarch’ defended by different men’s groups and 
fathers’ rights groups3. Fathers’ rights groups defend the rights of fathers, 
which may support men in divorces and separations, offer them psycho-
social support, and are not always necessarily opposed to feminist princi-
ples. Namely, the heterogeneity found in fathers’ rights groups ranges from 
those who advocate a discourse of equality and gender-equal parenting and 
base their custody requirements on the greater participation of fathers in 
3 Fathers’ rights groups in Slovenia, such as the Association of Fathers of Slovenia and Door, raise 
questions about whether fathers are being discriminated against in relation to mothers in awards of child 
custody. 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1124
care for their children (Boyd, 2012), through to extremist groups that are 
overtly or covertly anti-feminist and hostile to women. The activities of 
fathers’ rights groups are typically founded on eliciting anger, on accusa-
tions about their former partners and perceptions of loss and absence, and 
include destructive strategies in court procedures (Flood, 2012). The narra-
tives used by fathers’ rights groups stem from the concept of men’s depriva-
tion and disadvantaged position compared to women as mothers, who are 
supposedly favoured by the system of family legislation in the awarding of 
child custody and resolving of conflicts concerning contacts with the chil-
dren (Jordan, 2016). As part of men’s groups that seek wider rights, fathers’ 
rights groups perceive men as a deprivileged group, and that the existing 
state of affairs in gender relations is the result of feminism. The prevalent 
‘father as a victim discourse’ is grounded in the essentialist understanding of 
gender, the fatherhood–motherhood relationship and the rights of fathers 
calling for the re-establishing of patriarchal fathering authority along with 
the hetero-normative visions of the family involving the traditional gender 
roles (Crowley, 2006; Žakelj, 2008; Flood, 2012; Jordan, 2016). 
Father’s right movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived 
of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as fathers and 
as men in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. 
(Flood, 2012: 235) 
The main difference between the feminist and the fathers’ rights group 
discourses lies in the understanding of gender roles in relation to childcare. 
The feminist stand on parenthood and the division of care work is based 
on a de-essentialist discourse, on an understanding of gender-equal parent-
ing with men and women being equally capable of childcare. On the con-
trary, the discourse of fathers’ rights groups is established on an essentialist 
understanding of traditional mother and father roles and it is only by fathers 
gaining ‘equal rights’ to those held by mothers in child-custody issues that 
the traditional family values, roles and relations can be revitalised (Crowley, 
2006). The prevalent discourse of fathers’ rights groups builds on prioritis-
ing the principle of formal equality and rights that does not consider the 
perception of the caring role of man as a father, care practices and respon-
sibilities to children. 
Gender-neutral legislation and the gendered practices of 
institutions 
The gender-neutral principle whereby no preference is given to 
either parent in the court decision on child custody can be found in 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1125
family legislation covering the area known today as Slovenia since the 1950s 
(Žakelj, 2008). What ensures the child’s greatest benefit and welfare is the 
main determinant in custody issues. After the divorce or separation of their 
parents, children may live with one or the other parent or with both parents 
(co-parenting) while it is also possible that one child lives with one parent 
and the other child with another parent (shared parenting) (Žakelj, 2008; 
Podreka, 2017). Parents can submit the proposal to the court about child 
custody, while the court decides in cases where parents disagree about the 
child custody who the more suitable child carer is. 
Statistics on divorces involving child custody in the last 30 years in 
Slovenia show a rise in co-parenting. While in 1985 the share of co-parent-
ing was just 2%, by 2005 it had increased to 11% and by 2016 to 17% (SORS, 
2017). At the same time, the share of fathers with full child custody has 
remained at almost the same level over the last 30 years, ranging between 
6% and 8% (ibid.). According to Podreka (2017: 37), the biggest share of 
fathers with full custody occurs in cases when the court adjudicates on the 
custody (Podreka, 2017: 37). Among single-parent families, the share of sin-
gle-parent families with fathers is growing (from 3.2% in 1991 to 6.3% in 
2015) (Proposal of the Resolution on Family Policy 2018–2028, 2017: 9). 
In her analysis of court decisions on child custody, Žakelj (2008) con-
firms the gendered practice in evaluating parental care and estimating the 
more suitable parent. The key factor in the court’s decision on awarding 
child custody is the continuity of care, which implies only apparent gender 
neutrality. Gender-neutral treatment is vanished with the discourse explain-
ing why one parent is more appropriate than the other for future childcare. 
Subtle differentiation between the parents gives the impression of natu-
ral differences between mother and father as their roles are treated in dis-
similar ways in the court’s decisions. Žakelj (2008) concludes that mother-
hood is perceived as a homogeneous category, emphasised by woman’s 
devotion to care for the child, while fatherhood is seen as a heterogeneous 
category varying from the legitimacy of an absent father to caring fathers. 
When fathers are awarded full child custody, the court’s decision is based 
on the argument of the appropriateness of the father’s care role, includ-
ing references to persons who help the father in upbringing and caring for 
the child, most often by pointing to the role of the father’s mother or new 
female partner. In cases where the court awards mother with full child cus-
tody, the mother’s care role is taken for granted, without questioning about 
the support expected to be received from an informal social network (such 
as a new partner, parents, etc.). Parental roles are perceived in court pro-
ceedings according to the essentialist gender differentiation of motherhood 
and fatherhood, which does not allow any inferences that mothers and 
fathers are not being treated equally by the courts (Žakelj, 2008). However, 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1126
fatherhood implies requirements and social expectations other than moth-
erhood (ibid.). 
The policy discourse on divorce and child custody is ambivalent because, 
on one hand, the legislation follows the principle of gender equality and the 
de-essentialisation of parenthood by giving no preference to either parent. 
On the other hand, institutional practices (courts, centres for social work) 
show a more complex picture with trends towards an essentialist under-
standing of gender and a traditional division of parental roles. 
Methodological framework: data collection and sample 
characteristics
The empirical material comes from interviews with 12 fathers who 
are primary child carers, conducted in the Masculinities, Equality, Care 
Practices project in the second half of 2018. The sample of men as the pri-
mary child carer was mixed with regard to age, education, employment, and 
monthly income. Six fathers had full custody, three shared, in two cases the 
custody issues were still to be resolved in court proceedings and in one case 
an elderly father was taking care of an adult daughter with special needs 
(where custody was not in question). 
The respondents were recruited using the snowball method by relying 
on the researchers’ personal and formal networks, posting a public invita-
tion for an interview on the webpage and social media of the Peace Institute, 
including sharing the invitation on the social media of non-governmental 
organisations working in the field of child and family support. Interviews 
were conducted in homes, working places or public places, as well as in 
the library of the Peace Institute, depending on an interviewee’s wishes. All 
interviews were recorded, transcribed and anonymised for the purposes of 
the analysis. Interview questions related to male experiences with the pri-
mary care role, their own stories, how they became a primary carer, how 
they perceive and practice care work. While aware of the limits of a small 
and heterogeneous sample, which does not allow generalisations and can 
lead to fragmented research results, we still believe the results are important 
since they focus on fathers as primary child carers. In addition, the discus-
sion of caring fatherhood, so far corroborated by many studies based on the 
experiences of middle-class fathers in heterosexual relationships in Western 
and Scandinavian countries, now includes heterogeneous masculinities in a 
post-socialist country.
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1127
Table 1: DATA ABOUT THE INTERVIEWEES PARTNERS 
Pseudo-
nyms
Age Education Employment 
status 
Monthly income Gives care to Full/shared 
custody
Ivo 37 Secondary vocational 
education (3 years)
Unemployed 500 € Son (4) Full
Slovan 38 Short-cycle Higher 
education
Fixed term 
employment 
Below-average 
wage
Daughter (9) Shared
Damjan 39 Secondary general 
education (4 years)
Retired due to 
disability
700 € Son (5) Full
Robert 41 Secondary vocational 
education (3 years)
Retired due to 
disability
366 € Daughter (9) Full
Jan 46 Secondary general 
education (4 years)
Employed 800 € 2 sons (14, 9) and step 
daughter (18)
Custody is in court 
proceeding
Srečko 46 Secondary general 
education (4 years)
Employed 2,380 € 2 sons (13, 15) Shared
Aleksander 46 Bologna First-cycle Higher 
education
Employed 50,000 € – 60,000 
€ annually per 
household
Shared parenting for 2 
children (13, 18); live with 
4 children (2 from previous 
marriage, 2 from the 
present marriage)
Shared 
Matic 46 Bologna First-cycle Higher 
education
Self-employed 1,300 € Son (15) Full
Darko 49 Bologna First-cycle Higher 
education
Employed 1,200 € Daughter (6) and son (4) Custody is in 
court proceedings 
(mother requests 
full custody)
Marko 53 Compulsory basic 
education
Unemployed 900 € Daughter (5) and son (3) Full
Zvonimir 55 Bologna First-cycle Higher 
education
Employed 4,000 € Daughter (13) Full
Milan 91 Short-cycle higher 
education
Retired 1,000 € Daughter (56, special 
needs)
The main carer of 
his daughter
Source: Authors’ own analysis.
Analysis of the fathers’ narratives 
Fathers’ experiences of institutions: the father as the secondary parent 
A subgroup of fathers among the interviewed fathers is unemployed or 
unemployable due to serious health problems, disability and took on the role 
of the primary child carer due to the absence of or divorce from their female 
partner. In a specific set of circumstances linked to the separation from or 
absence of their partner (the child’s mother), or the partner’s health prob-
lems, these fathers took on primary care for the child. The circumstances 
relating to the divorce or absence of the female partner were accompanied 
by job loss or low wages, personal bankruptcy, debt and serious health 
problems, which led to the drastic deterioration of the socio-economic 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1128
position held by this group of interviewees. The narratives of these fathers 
typically reveal the strong involvement of the social work centres, courts 
of law, and often the police due to the suspicion of violence and various 
abuses, as well as non-governmental organisations (e.g. Association of the 
Friends of Youth, the Botrstvo sponsorship, the Association for Nonviolent 
Communication), which take on a supportive role in the psycho-social and 
material respect. 
In court proceedings, the fathers also emphasised the support received 
from their social network, especially their female relatives (mother, sister) 
who are involved in the childcare. For example, Ivo (37, 1),4 who has seri-
ous health problems, revealed that his partner left very soon after the child’s 
birth for a health treatment, and never returned . When the court decided 
on child custody, the mother did not attend the hearing, which the judge 
commented on: “this is the first time in my career that the mother did not 
even call to apologise for not being able to come”. In court, Ivo requested 
full child custody and, as the main argument proving his capability to take 
over the primary carer role, he stressed the full support of his mother and 
sister in providing the childcare. Ivo believes the court’s decision to award 
him with full custody was probably most affected by the fact the mother did 
not attend the hearing.
The subgroup of fathers who are socially and economically better 
 situated, with some having shared custody of the child, others waiting for 
court proceedings, and still others being the primary parent, report nega-
tive experiences with institutions while pursuing their parental rights. In his 
interview, Slovan (38, 1) reveals he faced the difficult situation of divorce 
and bankruptcy at almost the same time, accompanied by suicidal thoughts. 
With support, he managed to rebuild his life, which involved the wish to be 
part of his child’s life by requesting shared custody. According to Slovan, the 
divorce was a long and stressful process largely because the courts and cen-
tres for social work prefer mothers to be the primary caregiver of children, 
while fathers are treated as the secondary parent. He insisted on shared cus-
tody, which was achieved, chiefly through good communication and nego-
tiations with his former partner. His closeness with his child may be under-
stood as guiding principle of Slovan’s involved fatherhood. 
Since being born, my daughter has been more attached to me and, 
when we divorced, I requested and later demanded shared custody. It 
was very hard because the centres for social work and courts are not 
in favour of fathers, so I had to try everything – good communication 
with the mother and negotiating with her … As we talked in court and 
4 The figures in brackets indicate the respondent’s age and number of children. 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1129
at the centre for social work, the judge said mother will have custody of 
the child … So to say, mothers are more suitable for bringing up children 
than fathers who … do not have this primary maternal instinct. (Slovan, 
38, 1) 
Similarly, Darko (49), the father of two children (aged 4 and 6), critically 
exposes the institutional attitude to man as a father caring for a child follow-
ing separation from a female partner. The first couple of years after the sep-
aration the children lived mainly with their mother, which Darko perceived 
as a natural fact that children aged up to 2 years need primarily the mother, 
especially if they’re breastfed, while after that age the father’s caring role 
becomes more relevant. Darko and his former partner agreed on co-parent-
ing whereby the children would live for an equal amount of time with him 
and with their mother. However, the mother filed a court request for full 
custody. Darko does not reveal the reasons for that, but mostly points to the 
gender-biased institutions in the process of awarding child custody.
… based on the opinion of the (female) court-appointed expert… I was 
not asked, who took care of the children in the first four years, the court 
expert just wrote in the judicial record what my former partner had said 
… I thought we both should be asked and be treated equally … ok, the 
case about custody is not final yet, but already the court expert has con-
cluded on the basis of one side … I think that from the very beginning 
men are treated as less suitable carers. (Darko, 49, 2)
Aleksander (46, 4) reports similar experiences in the centre for social 
work when seeking to pursue his parental rights. He has shared custody of 
two children from a previous marriage, and is living with his new partner 
and their two children. The arrangement with the former wife is based on 
co-parenting, when every second week four children live with Aleksander 
and his new female partner. 
… With my former wife we had the same interest in the children being 
ok and she also went with me to the centre for social work when I had 
problems, because they would not believe me, they thought that I want 
to cheat them, saying to me, “you just want money” …. because we actu-
ally take care of four children, I had problems explaining this fact to 
them. My former wife went with me to the centre for social work to con-
firm and only when she had explained the situation did they believe her. 
They didn’t believe me because it was a bit strange, how men [can care 
for four children] …. (Aleksander, 46, 4) 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1130
Despite the court’s approval of shared custody, which is a precondition 
for claiming income tax relief for taking care of the children at the centre 
for social work, Aleksander (46, 4) faced institutional distrust as a primary 
child carer. Alexander’s example clearly shows the gender differentiation of 
parenthood at the institutional level, which can result in the discrimination 
and exclusion of fathers who are seeking to pursue their parental rights and 
responsibilities. 
The fathers in the interviews narrated negative experiences with the 
courts of law and social work centres. They stated that the father’s role is 
not perceived as being equivalent to the role of the mother. Perceptions of 
the mother’s primary and father’s secondary parental role apply to the level 
of institutions, which fathers reported as problematic when adjudicating on 
child custody. 
However, not all experiences with the courts and centres for social work 
recounted in the interviews were negative. For example, Srečko (46, 2), who 
lives in a gay partnership, reports that in the divorce process he and former 
wife prepared an agreement on shared custody of their two children, which 
the court confirmed without any negative or gender-biased explanation or 
treatment. Similarly, Matic (46, 1) who has full custody of his son, described 
a positive experience with the institutions and emphasised the support he 
had received for his son from the centre for social work. Zvonimir (55, 1), 
with full custody of his daughter, stressed the supportive experience he had 
at the centre for social work. 
The majority of the fathers’ narratives speaks of their negative experi-
ences with the courts and centres social work and the exclusion and dis-
crimination they faced while pursuing their parental rights. The key differ-
ence, as seen from the interviews, is in the presence/absence of the mother. 
Where fathers had full custody, there were no other options for the primary 
child carer as the mother was either absent or incapable (due to serious 
health conditions) of caring for the child. In cases of shared child custody, 
the fathers made great efforts and expressed a request for shared care in 
courts of law and centres for social work. The institutional discourse is 
based on questioning the father’s caring role and his capabilities to exer-
cise the parental role and responsibilities. The supportive role of female 
relatives (the father’s mother or sister) is emphasised by some fathers as an 
extra argument used in court to prove their ability to be the primary child 
carer. Still, this simply confirms the perceptions of gendered parenthood 
with mothers as the primary child carer, and fathers as the secondary one, 
that can be found on both the institutional level and the individual level of 
some of the interviewed fathers. 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1131
Involved fatherhood: from traditional to feminist perceptions and practices
In all of the interviews, children and taking care of them occupy central 
place in the men’s lives. Fathers as the primary child carer provide complete 
care for their children, including domestic tasks, which some of them had 
to learn after taking over the care for their child(ren). They strive to ensure 
the best possible care for their child(ren), which includes single-parent 
fathers who are socially and economically strongly disadvantaged, mostly 
by meeting their child’s basic needs in terms of food, health, clothing and 
play. Socio-economically better situated fathers place quality relationships 
with their children in foreground, and see the opportunity to offer them 
something more in their development as being crucial in childcare. 
They hold mixed perceptions of care and parental role and include more 
traditional and instrumental beliefs of caring for a child as well as a gender-
equal understanding of care whereby both men and women are equally 
capable of parenting. 
In some of the fathers’ narratives, the perception of mother/father roles 
is based on gender differentiation originating from biological differences 
between women and men. Some fathers see differences between mother 
and father in terms of their deficiency. The fact that only women can give 
birth and breastfeed, where a special connection between mother and child 
is formed, which can never be developed in the relationship between father 
and child, occupies centre place in the gender differentiation of parental 
roles. Ivo (37, 1) explains that “men are equally capable of taking care of the 
child, but the difference is in mother’s love, in her hugs” and, irrespective 
of his efforts to care for the child, he feels that his parental role is deficient 
compared to the mother’s role. On the other hand, some fathers expressed 
contra-narratives. In their view, emotional connectedness and parental care 
are not related to the gender of the parent, but are part of the care rela-
tionship that develops between parent and child. Matic (46, 1) emphasises 
that maternal love for the child is being exaggerated in society as something 
fathers are incapable of, by explaining that “you [as a man] can be as gentle 
as a woman can, you can be loving and gentle as a father or as a woman”.
Interviews with the fathers who are the primary child carer provide 
valuable insights into men’s caring involvement in their private lives. The 
complexity of the care experiences and practices of the interviewed fathers 
have changed their attitude to care work and their own position in the care 
relationship. In some narratives, involved fatherhood includes gender-equal 
perceptions and practices. For example, Milan (91) is an elderly man with 
care experiences in both professional and private life. He recognises the 
care experiences obtained in his professional work as bringing an advan-
tage in terms of the skills, knowledge and competencies that were of help 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1132
when taking over the care of his ill wife and daughter with special needs. 
His wife had passed away a few years before and, despite his age, he is still 
involved in caring for his adult daughter (aged 56) with special needs. In his 
view, “man needs to do the washing, cleaning, cooking, caring and all those 
things are part of the lives of both men and women”. Milan’s participation 
in private and professional care is an example of caring masculinities lead-
ing to gender-equal masculinities. On the contrary, in some of the fathers’ 
narratives, involved fatherhood includes traits of traditional masculinity like 
authority, control, emotional detachment and essentialist understandings of 
gender roles. These narratives show that involved fatherhood in all its com-
plexity does not necessarily carry the potential for gender equality. 
Conclusion
In the context of contemporary fatherhood, we observe ambivalent dis-
courses where, on one hand, feminist and gender equality discourses stand 
for equality in parenthood, the equal sharing of care responsibilities among 
partners. On the other hand, the anti-feminist initiatives promoted by men’s 
groups and fathers’ rights groups that call for a re-traditionalisation of gen-
der roles and the nuclear family model cannot be ignored. The vital differ-
ence is that fathers’ rights groups are striving for formal equality in child 
custody, which does not imply any efforts towards gender-equal parenting 
and an equal share of caring and upbringing of the child(ren) between part-
ners. Moreover, the caring role of man as a father along with care practices 
and responsibilities towards children are absent in the discourse of fathers’ 
rights groups. On the policy level, the discourse is based on the principle of 
gender equality and de-essentialist perceptions of parenthood as part of the 
family legislation, while the institutional practices show a complex picture, 
including essentialist perceptions of gender and the traditional division of 
parenting roles. 
In the interviews with the fathers, we observe perceptions of mother-
hood and fatherhood where biological difference is explained as the main 
denominator in understanding the role of the mother as the primary child 
carer and the father’s role as the secondary parent that supplements the 
mother’s role. Despite the greater involvement of contemporary fathers in 
childcare identified by Žakelj (2008), parental roles in court child custody 
proceedings are being treated according to the socio-historical mother-
hood/fatherhood distinction, which does not mean the unequal treatment 
of mothers and fathers, but different expectations, demands and beliefs 
regarding fatherhood and motherhood. Involved fatherhood has still to 
become part of the discourse on parental roles at the institutional level 
(courts, centres for social work) (ibid.).
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1133
The narratives of the different social groups of interviewed fathers speak 
of systemic inequality and discrimination (Bailey, 2015). Men are perceived 
and treated as secondary parents due to the perception of maternal care for 
the child as the primary parental role, which is deeply embedded in society, 
institutions, policies and everyday practices. Single fathers who are either 
primary carers or have shared custody engage in variations of the margin-
alised (low socio-economic situation, poverty, serious health problems and 
illnesses) and hegemonic and complicit masculinities (well situated, hetero-
sexual, educated, healthy). Changes like divorce, job loss, serious illness, 
and full or shared child custody produced changes in masculinities. Men’s 
involvement in care work enables the transformation of men’s caring atti-
tudes and affects how they reconstruct their identities, which brings the 
potential for a change in gender relations (Coltrane, 1996; Hanlon, 2012). 
Fatherhood and heterogeneous masculinities are represented by traits of 
involved fatherhood including more traditional masculine elements, such 
as control, decisiveness as well as more gender-equal perceptions and prac-
tices (Björk, 2013). Fatherhood and fathering practices must be understood 
as an “active project” (ibid.), as also observed in the fathers’ narratives show-
ing transformations of their fathering role. The interviews with the fathers 
reveal a wide range of experiences and practices of caring masculinities, 
also involving elements of traditional masculinity like determination, con-
trol and, in one case, membership in a fathers’ rights group with expressions 
of anger against women and gays. Therefore, our interviews do not show 
that caring masculinities can be equated with gender-equal masculinities. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acker, Joan (1990): Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organisations. 
Gender & Society 4 (2): 139–158.
Bailey, Jemimah (2015): Understanding Contemporary Fatherhood: Masculine Care 
and the Patriarchal Deficit. Families, Relationships and Societies 4 (1): 3–17.
Bianchi, Suzanne, Melissa A. Milkie, Liana Sayer and John P. Robinson (2000): Is 
Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household 
Labor. Social Forces 79 (1): 191–228.
Björk, Sofia (2013): Doing Morally Intelligible Fatherhood: Swedish Fathers’ 
Accounts of Their Parental Part-time Work Choices. Fathering 11 (2): 221–237. 
Boyd, B., Susan (2012): Shared Parenting and Challenges for Maternal Autonomy. 
In Andrea O’Reilly (ed.), What Do Mothers Need? Motherhood Activists and 
Scholars Speak Out on Maternal Empowerment for the 21st Century, 231–242. 
Bradford: Demeter Press. 
Brandth, Berit and Elin Kvande (1998): Masculinity and Childcare: The Recon-
struction of Fathering. Sociological Review 46 (2): 293–313.
Brandth, Berit and Elin Kvande (2009): Gendered or Gender-Neutral Care Politics 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1134
For Fathers. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social 
Science 624 (1): 177–189.
Bubeck, Diemut Elisabet (1995): Care, Gender and Justice. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.
Chodorow, Nancy (1978): The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the 
Sociology of Gender. Berkley: University of California Press.
Coltrane, Scott (1996): Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Connell, W., Raewyn (2005): Masculinities. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of 
California Press. 
Crowley, Jocelyn Elise (2006): Organizational Responses to the Fatherhood Crisis: 
The Care of Fathers’ Rights Groups in the United States of America. Marriage 
and Family Review 39 (1/2): 99–120.
Dermott, Esther (2008): Intimate Fatherhood. A Sociological Analysis. London, New 
York: Routledge.
Deutsch, M., Francine (1999): Having It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Deutsch, M., Francine (2007): Undoing Gender. Gender and Society 21 (1): 106–
127. 
Doucet, Andrea (2009): Dad and Baby in the First Year: Gendered Responsibilities 
and Embodiment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social 
Science 624 (1): 78–98.
Doucet, Andrea and Robyn Lee (2014): Fathering, Feminism(s), Gender, and 
Sexualities: Connections, Tensions, and New Pathways. Journal of Family 
Theory & Review 6 (4): 355–373. 
Fagan, Jay and Marina Barnett (2003): The Relationship Between Maternal 
Gatekeeping, Paternal Competence, Mothers’ Attitudes About the Father Role, 
and Father Involvement. Journal of Family Issues 24 (8): 1020–1043.
Flood, Michael (2012): Separated Fathers and the ‘Fathers’ Rights’ Movement. 
Journal of Family Studies 18 (2–3): 235–245. 
Haas, Linda (1993): Nurturing Fathers and Working Mothers. Changing Gender 
Roles in Sweden. In Jane C. Hood (ed.), Men, Work, and Family, 238–262. 
Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage. 
Hanlon, Niall (2012): Masculinities, Care and Equality: Identity and Nurture in 
Men’s Lives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 
Hobson, Barbara and David Morgan (2002): Introduction. In Barbara Hobson 
(ed.), Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the Social Politics of 
Fatherhood, 1–21. Cambridge: University Press.
Hobson, Barbara (ed.) (2002): Making Men into Fathers. Men, Masculinities and the 
Social Politics of Fatherhood. Cambridge: University Press. 
Hochschild, Arlie (1995): Understanding the Future of Fatherhood: The ‘Daddy 
Hierarchy’ and Beyond. In Mirjam van Dongen, Gerard Frinking and Menno 
Jacobs (eds.), Changing Fatherhood: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 219–231. 
Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. 
Živa HUMER
TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 56, 4/2019
1135
Jordan, Ana (2016): Conceptualizing Backlash: (UK) Men’s Rights Groups, Anti-
Feminism, and Postfeminism. CJWL/RFD 28: 18–44.
Kan, Man, Yee, Oriel Sullivan and Jonathan Gershuny (2011): Gender Convergence 
in Domestic Work: Discerning the Effects of Interactional and Institutional 
Barriers from Large-Scale Data. Sociology 45 (2): 234–251.
Oakley, Ann (1980): Reflections on the Study of Household Work. In Sarah 
Fenstermaker Berk (ed.), Women and Household Labor, 25–34. London, 
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Scambor, Elli, Nadja Bergmann, Katarzyna Wojnicka, Sophia Belghiti-Mahut, Jeff 
Hearn, Øystein Gulvåg Holter, Märc Gärtner, Majda Hrženjak, Christian Scambor 
and Alan White (2014): Men and Gender Equality: European Insights. Men and 
Masculinities 17 (5): 552–577.
Scambor, Elli, Majda Hrženjak, Nadja Bergmann and Øystein Gulvåg Holter (2015): 
Men’s Share of Care for Children and Professional Care. Studia Humanistyczne 
AGH 14 (2): 53–71. 
Švab, Alenka (2001): Družina: od modernosti k postmodernosti. Ljubljana: znanst-
veno in publicistično središče.
Žakelj, Tjaša (2008): Sodniški diskurzi o očetovstvu in očetovanju ob razvezah 
in razpadih zunajzakonskih zvez. In Tanja Rener, Živa Humer, Tjaša Žakelj, 
Andreja Vezovnik and Alenka Švab (eds.), Novo očetovstvo v Sloveniji, 168–
196. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. 
SOURCES
Masculinities, Equality, Care Practices. Accessible at  http://www.mirovni-institut.si/
en/projects/masculinities-equality-care, 17. 12. 2019.
Ministrstvo za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti (2018): Resolution 
on the Family Policy 2018–2028: “A Society Friendly to All Families”. Accessible 
at http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO118, 14. 6. 2019.
Podreka, Jasna (2017): Poročilo o izvedbi analize o zaupanju otrok v varstvo in 
vzgojo ob razvezah, stikih z otroki ter o ekonomskem položaju žensk in otrok 
po razvezi. Ministrstvo za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti. 
Accessible at http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/
dokumenti_pdf/enake_moznosti/RaziskavaRazveze.pdf, 16. 8. 2019.
Scambor, Elli, Katarzyna Wojnicka and Nadja Bergmann (eds.) (2013): The Role 
of Men in Gender Equality: European Strategies & Insights: Study on the Role 
of Men in Gender Equality. Luxemburg: European Commission Directorate – 
General for Justice. Accessible at https://publications.europa.eu/en/publica-
tion-detail/-/publication/f6f90d59-ac4f-442f-be9b-32c3bd36eaf1, 10. 2. 2019. 
Statistični urad Republike Slovenije (2017): SI-STAT podatkovni portal. Accessible 
at http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Dem_soc/Dem_soc.asp, 10. 2. 2019.