‘I am a traditional but caring father’: narratives of paternal masculinity in urban Chinese families

ABSTRACT

Against the backdrop of an international trend of increased paternal involvement in caregiving and a national setting in which the role of disciplinarian and authoritarian are still centralized, the main aim of the current study is to investigate the paternal masculinities of contemporary Chinese fathers. Based on interviews with 30 urban Chinese fathers, our results reveal that paternal masculinity can be understood in contemporary Chinese society as a hybrid version encompassing caring masculinities, but also aspects of protective masculinity and/or masculine care. Our participants perceived themselves as caring fathers who were physically and emotionally involved in routine caregiving activities and who provided companionship for their children, which embodies the traits of caring masculinity. At the same time, some fathers also emphasized their roles as good providers, whereas others highlighted their roles as gender role models, whilst some stressed all three dimensions. By embracing these different elements simultaneously, urban Chinese fathers both confirm and challenge traditional notions of masculinity, but through enacting this hybrid form of masculinity they perpetuate the system of gender inequality in a new and softer way. The findings from this study expand our understanding of hybrid masculinity and masculine care from a local perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Fatherhood
• masculine care
• caring masculinity
• hybrid masculinity
• China

Introduction

For many decades, father’s primary responsibility has been fulfilling the breadwinner role, whereas mother’s primary responsibility has been the daily caretaking of the children and the household (Cunningham, 2008; Zelditch, 1955). In the past three decades, however, the increase in women’s labour force participation, the rise in women’s educational attainment and relative income have led to a shift away from this traditional role pattern, and to stronger involvement of fathers in the daily care of their children (Featherstone, 2009). Consequently, in addition to providing financially for their families, many fathers now fit the profile of being a ‘new father’ (McGill, 2014; Miller, 2011). ‘New fathers’ are men who are relatively more equal partners in childcare work, who spend time nurturing their children, and who are involved in physical caregiving activities (McGill, 2014).

Against this societal backdrop, a growing body of research has investigated how men themselves think about the roles, behaviours, and attributes that are nowadays considered appropriate for men in a given society (Joshi, 2021; Randles, 2018; Sambath, 2022; Scheibling, 2018; Xu & Yeung, 2013). Some studies show that in taking care of their children, fathers emphasize activities that are seen as traditional masculine ones, mentioning that they, amongst others, place importance on protecting the child and teaching the child independence (Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Enderstein & Boonzaier, 2015; Xu & Yeung, 2013). Other studies suggest that men embrace the notion of caring masculinity, which means that fathers locate paternal masculinity in nurturing activities (Brandth & Kvande, 2018; Joshi, 2021; Lee & Lee, 2016). Again, other studies have scrutinized the extent to which men incorporate both broad types of masculinities into their paternal identities, which is labelled ‘hybrid masculinity’ (Randles, 2018). Hybrid masculinity refers to the selective incorporation of elements typically associated with marginalized, subordinated masculinities and femininities into masculine identities or practices (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Adopters of hybrid masculinity show the traits of a ‘caring man’ while also holding on to the idea of hegemonic masculinity (Eisen & Yamashita, 2019). For instance, in Randles (2018) work, men’s understanding of good fathers emphasized the traditional role of supporting the family as well as the idea of being physically and emotionally present in their children’s lives.

Most of the abovementioned literature has been conducted in European (e.g. Sweden) and North American societies. Several of these countries are characterized by having relatively more gender-egalitarian societal norms in comparison to China (Lombardo & Meier, 2008). In addition, they are characterized by the existence of relatively more generous family-friendly policies (i.e. parental leave and paternity leave) which facilitate and encourage men to be actively involved in parenthood. Consequently, it might be difficult to extrapolate these Western findings on paternal masculinities to societal contexts in which such gender-egalitarian norms are less in abundance and in which such policies have only recently been implemented.

The current paper is situated in an Asian country, more specifically in China, a societal context that has different historical and cultural traditions in terms of caring masculinity and hybrid masculinity. Although scholars have also witnessed in China that fathering identities are changing, we do not expect that the fathering identities of many urban Chinese fathers will fall within the single category of caring masculinities. Louie’s study, conducted in Louie (2015), categorized ideal Chinese masculinity as ‘wen’ (cultural attainment) and ‘wu’ (physical prowess) -two concepts that both do not contain elements of caring masculinity. Furthermore, wealth has been considered a major form of hegemonic masculinity in China (Choi & Peng, 2016, p. 101; Song & Hird, 2014). More recently, studies have revealed that economic provision remains an essential part in the construction of masculinities amongst Chinese fathers (Cao & Lin, 2019; Liu & Zheng, 2021). Thus, although we know that fathering identities in China are also undergoing transformations, we should be hesitant in extrapolating the conclusions drawn from Western countries to the Chinese context. We expect, as we set forth in our theoretical framework, that the most likely shape that fathering identities amongst Chinese urban fathers will have, is a culturally-specific form of hybrid masculinity.

In Asian countries, fatherhood has been influenced by the powerful notions of Confucianism (Ishii-Kuntz, 2015), and it has played, and continues to play, a fundamental role in constructing Chinese fatherhood (Li & Lamb, 2015). Chinese fathers have for long been depicted as stern disciplinarians and authoritarians who needed to secure family income to support their wives and children (Li & Lamb, 2015). Simultaneously, they are deemed responsible for their children’s behaviour to maintain the reputation of the family lineage. The old Chinese saying ‘zi bu jiao and fu zi guo’ (it is the father’s fault if the child is not appropriately educated) delineates the importance of the father’s discipline to children. Under the influence of Confucianism, active involvement in childcare or having warm, nurturing, interactions with one’s children was not seen as part of manhood; rather, traditional Chinese fathers believed that they should refrain from emotional indulgence in fathering practices (Li & Jankowiak, 2016). Against the backdrop of an international trend of increased paternal involvement in caregiving and with a national setting in which the role of disciplinarian and authoritarian are still centralized, the main aim of the current study is to investigate the paternal masculinities of contemporary Chinese fathers.

What makes China in particular an interesting Asian country to investigate paternal masculinities is the recent introduction of parental and paternity leave schemes and the rise of Chinese neo-familism (Yan, 2018). With respect to the first, although China does not have unified legislation for paternity leave, 7 to 15 days of leave is offered to a father who is a civil servant or a member of a state-owned enterprise in most cities (Wang, 2023). Also, since 2022, some cities provide 15 days of parental leave each year to couples with children under the age of three (Wang, 2023). With respect to the second characteristic, for decades, China had a one-child policy. Although this policy has been abolished, China remains to be characterized as a country in which family resources of all sorts flow downward and, most importantly, the focus of the existential ‘meaning of life’ has shifted from the ancestors to the grandchildren (Yan, 2018). Children, which are still often the ‘only hope’, are the centre of family life, and all family members, including grandparents, are doing their best to work towards the common goal of raising ‘a perfect child’ (Fong, 2004). Situated in this context, we seek out to investigate the construction of paternal masculinities in Chinese families.

Existing research on Chinese fatherhood and masculinity pays specific attention to rural fathers and rural migrant workers (e.g. Choi & Peng, 2016; Liu & Zheng, 2021). Research on rural Chinese fathers found that being the family provider is an important way of constructing masculinity for rural fathers (Liu & Zheng, 2021). Although they care about their children, expressing verbal affection in front of them is not evident in their narratives (Liu & Zheng, 2021). In contrast, expressing affection and emotion do emerge as visible themes in the construction of masculinity regarding rural-to-urban migrant fathers (Choi & Peng, 2016), but only after having migrated away from their families. For these fathers, migration creates new opportunities to reflect on the emotional connections with their children (Choi & Peng, 2016, p. 113). Considering that existing research on Chinese fatherhood and masculinity pays specific attention to rural fathers and rural migrant workers rather than urban fathers (e.g. Choi & Peng, 2016; Liu & Zheng, 2021), this research addresses this gap in the literature and focuses on urban Chinese families.

Theoretical framework

Masculinities

According to Connell (2000), masculinity is inherently relational, existing only in contrast to femininity, and must be understood as multidimensional and dynamic construct. Her classical work Masculinities divides masculinities into four categories: hegemony, subordination, complicity, and marginalization (Connell, 2005). She suggests ‘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 the dominant position of men and the subordination of women’ (Connell, 2005, p. 76). Subordination refers to the existence of specific gender relations of dominance and subordination between groups of men (Connell, 2005, p. 78). The most crucial case in contemporary society is the dominance of heterosexual men and the subordination of homosexual men. In addition, Connell (2005, p. 79) argues that the number of men rigorously practicing the hegemonic pattern is relatively small. Thus, she uses the concept of complicity to describe the specific situation where men do not embody hegemonic masculinity but still benefit from the ‘patriarchal dividend’. Lastly, hegemony, subordination, and complicity are the internal relations of the gender order. The interaction of gender with other structures such as class and race allows for the emergence of marginalized masculinity (Connell, 2005, p. 80).

Connell’s theory of masculinities provides an ideal type for identifying and classifying masculinity theoretically, yet fatherhood does not appear to be a major or central issue in her work (Johansson & Andreasson, 2017, p. 28). To complement this line of work, research has focused on how fathers construct and negotiate masculinities. There is consensus among scholars that masculinity is formed and maintained in everyday negotiations about childcare, housework, and work (Brandth & Kvande, 1998). As such, recent studies, also those conducted in Asia, highlight that paternal masculinities are dynamic rather than static (Sambath, 2022).

We draw on the concept of paternal masculinities and in particular the notions of protective, caring, and hybrid masculinity, notions on which we will elaborate below, to guide our study.

Protective masculinity, caring masculinity, and hybrid masculinity

Protective masculinity was originally used by Johnson (2013) to discuss the use of emotion by politicians. The concept emphasizes solid and tough men protecting women, children, and sometimes other men, from various threats to their safety (Johnson, 2013). In her recent work, Wojnicka (2021) brings protective masculinity into the discussion of fatherhood and masculinity. According to Wojnicka, protective masculinity can be seen as a specific form of hegemonic masculinity, is associated with physical strength, power, and control, and defines the role of men in the family as primarily providing financial support and physical protection to women and children (Graf & Wojnicka, 2021; Wojnicka, 2021).

In the latest qualitative comparative study based on Germany and Sweden, Graf and Wojnicka (2021) find that although all men in their research emphasize their desire to be actively involved in family life, the notion of protective masculinity is still very prevalent in fathers’ narratives. Especially in Germany, after parents’ separation, the unfair alimony system and cultural prejudice force German fathers to pay more attention to their breadwinner role (Graf & Wojnicka, 2021). In the Chinese context, the breadwinner as the primary role for fathers, although to a lesser extent for urban fathers, has most likely not changed fundamentally (Cao & Lin, 2019; Liu & Zheng, 2021). In this research, we use the concept of protective masculinity to capture the notion of traditional masculinity presented in the fathering practices of Chinese fathers.

The second concept central in our study is the concept of caring masculinity, which can be situated at the other end of the continuum, opposite to protective masculinity (Wojnicka, 2021). In this light, it is worth mentioning the recent study of Sambath (2022), conducted in Cambodia, where the author developed a framework for placing masculine identities in fathering practices on a continuum from ‘less-caring masculinity’ to ‘more-caring masculinity’. Caring masculinity was first developed by Hanlon (2012) to describe the Irish male experiences of care work in the home. Hanlon’s work shows that doing care work is associated with having a more flexible definition of masculinity and supporting men to develop a ‘softer’ masculinity (Hanlon, 2012). However, he did not give a clear description of caring masculinity. Based on insights from Hanlon’s work, critical studies on men and masculinities, and feminist care theory, Elliott (2015) constructs a theoretical framework for analysing caring masculinities and identifies three main characteristics of caring masculinities: rejecting domination, valuing and embracing the affective, relational, emotional, and interdependent qualities of care, as well as reshaping traditional masculine values, such as to protect and to provide, into relational, interdependent, and care-oriented ones. In this research, we use the concept of caring masculinity to capture the notion of non-traditional masculinity presented in the fathering practices of Chinese fathers (e.g. involvement in childcare work and displaying emotions to their children).

As abovementioned, the majority of recent studies have scrutinized fathers’ caring masculinities in the Western context of childcare (Joshi, 2021; Lee & Lee, 2016; Scheibling, 2018). Hands-on and emotional involvement in childcare practices amongst Chinese fathers is emerging (Xu & O’Brien, 2014; Xu & Wang, 2019). This involvement is starting to become an integral part of contemporary Chinese masculinity (Li & Jankowiak, 2016; Xu & O’Brien, 2014). Moreover, familial masculinity in contemporary China now incorporates elements that have traditionally been seen as feminine traits, such as caring, patience, and emotion (Song & Hird, 2014, p. 261). These changes in familial masculinity and fathering identities on the one hand and the increases in the paternal involvement of contemporary Chinese fathers on the other are likely reinforcing each other mutually. That said, although Chinese men are changing their role as fathers towards ‘new fathers’, they practice the ‘new fatherhood’ or caring masculinity differently from Western fathers. Men in Western contexts, especially in Scandinavian countries, have the opportunity to care for their children alone during parental leave (Brandth & Kvande, 2016). However, fathering alone is almost impossible in China. After the child is born, it is common for grandparents to be involved in childcare. The responsibility for childcare is first taken by the mother, then by the grandparents, and finally by the father (Xu & Wang, 2019). Consequently, most Chinese fathers are best characterized as ‘helpers’ to assist their partners or the children’s grandmothers in caring for the children (Wang, 2020). Furthermore, as aforementioned, wealth has been considered a major form of hegemonic masculinity in China (Choi & Peng, 2016, p. 101; Song & Hird, 2014) and studies have revealed that economic provision remains an essential part in the construction of masculinities amongst Chinese fathers (Cao & Lin, 2019; Liong, 2017; Liu & Zheng, 2021). Consequently, it is unlikely that that middle-class fathers only embody the traits of caring masculinity. It might be the case that the men in our sample embody caring masculinity but at the same time also defend their masculine identities – reifying an element of hegemonic masculinity. Hybrid masculinity captures the idea that fathers may integrate care tasks into their conception of masculinity, without rejecting gender as a relevant social category (Eisen & Yamashita, 2019); presenting themselves as tough and strong whilst also showing vulnerability (Connor et al., 2021). This concept shares similarities with the notion of ‘masculine care’. The study of Brandth and Kvande (1998) revealed that some fathers find their female partners too protective and overinvolved regarding their children, and they contrast their own parenting style to this. As such, these men defend their masculine identities by employing the notion of masculine care – by drawing boundaries between the feminine and masculine realm of childcare. We used the concept of hybrid masculinity to explore how these men create fathering identities that emphasize masculine care.

Materials and methods

Data collection

We used a qualitative approach to collect and analyse data. The data collection process consisted of face to face and online audio interviews. During the period from February 2021 to July 2022, the first author conducted 30 in-depth interviews with Chinese urban fathers aged 28 to 36 years. Among these interviews, 26 were conducted face to face, and the rest were conducted online (voice chatting on WeChat, a Chinese social media messaging app) for the reason of China’s policy to combat the COVID-19 epidemic. Online participants’ responses were briefer than those from respondents whose interviews were conducted face-to-face. The location of the interviews that took place offline was chosen by the participants. These interviews were mainly conducted in the interviewee’s home, their workplace, or in a coffee shop. Each interview lasted about 1 to 2 hours. The interviews were semi-structured, and the order of the questions was adjusted to match the flow of the conversation based on the interviewee’s responses. The topic list used can be found in Appendix A. After the interview, a gift valued at 50 yuan (about US$7.75) was provided as compensation.

Recruitment and enrollment

Purposive sampling and snowball sampling were adopted to recruit participants. We searched for participants by posting advertisements with a brief introduction about our research online (mainly on WeChat). The first author also sought help from friends and relatives who are fathers, and these individuals recommended other respondents to our study. Fathers were eligible for enrolment when they had at least one child under the age of seven. This age-criterium was chosen for two reasons. First, fathers spend less time with children as they get older, particularly in basic caregiving activities, and areas of childcare shift from basic care and play to education and management (Nomaguchi et al., 2021). For example, when Chinese children reach the age of seven, most of their time will be spent at primary school. Restricting respondents to men with children under age seven allowed us to zoom into the caring elements of paternal masculinity. Second, given that the literature on paternal masculinity conducted in the Western context primarily focused on young children (e.g. Brandth & Kvande, 2016; Eerola & Mykkänen, 2015; Joshi, 2021), our age restriction would facilitate the comparison of findings across studies.

Sample characteristics

Table 1 shows the basic information of our participants. All 30 participants were in heterosexual relationships with their partner. All participants were employed and had partners who also participated on the labour market, making all families dual-income families. 22 of the 30 participants were from southwest China (mainly Chongqing municipality, Chengdu city, and Guizhou province), 5 fathers were from Nanjing city, 2 fathers were from Hebei province in northern China, and 1 was from Fujian province in southern China. The majority of the participants (22) had one child, and the other 8 had two children. In terms of educational background, 25 participants had received undergraduate education, 2 participants had a master’s degree, and 3 respondents were PhD candidates. Our participants come from a wide range of professional fields and disciplines, such as students, dentists, lawyers, self-employed workers, teachers, the real estate industry, the IT industry, and state-owned enterprises. Overall, our participants can broadly be described as middle class.

Table 1. Characteristics of our 30 participants.

Name	Age	Region	Occupation	Education	Gender and age of Children (years old)
1 Jian	30	Guizhou province	Engineer	BA	Boy (3)
2 Yu	33		Civil servant	BA	Girl (7) Boy (2)
3 Dou	31		Salesperson	BA	Boy (2)
4 Xing	30		Staff of public institutions	BA	Girl (2)
5 Yi	30		Court clerk	BA	Boy (2)
6 Hu	32		Staff of state enterprises	BA	Girl (10) Boy (3)
7 Tao	32		Teacher	BA	Girl (5) Boy (2)
8 Hai	33		Teacher	BA	Girl (6) Girl (3)
9 Kun	36		Teacher	BA	Girl (13) Girl (5)
10 Feng	33		Teacher	BA	Girl (3) Girl (1)
11 Xue	31		Teacher	BA	Girl (8) Boy (4)
12 Yang	36	Chongqing municipality	Accountant	BA	Boy (7)
13 Jun	32		Operation manager	BA	Boy (2)
14 Yan	29		Operation manager	BA	Girl (2)
15 Ray	35		Customer manager	BA	Boy (6)
16 Su	32		Service manager	BA	Girl (3)
17 Yun	28		Salesperson	BA	Boy (2)
18 Bao	28	Chengdu city	Self-employee	MA	Boy (3)
19 Bin	30		Lawyer	Ph.D.	Girl (3)
20 An	34		Student	Ph.D.	Girl (1)
21 Jay	31		Staff of public institutions	Ph.D.	Boy (3)
22 Xian	33		Sales manager	BA	Boy (2)
23 Wu	31	Nanjing city	Self-employee	BA	Boy (4)
24 Zeng	33		IT programmer	MA	Boy (5)
25 Chao	36		IT programmer	BA	Boy (9) Boy (3)
26 Duan	34		Civil servant	BA	Boy (5)
27 Zhu	31		Sales manager	BA	Boy (3)
28 Luo	31	Hebei province	Dentist	BA	Girl (4)
29 Wan	32		Teacher	BA	Girl (5)
30 Dai	34	Fujian	Middle-level manager	BA	Boy (4)

Coding

All interviews were conducted and fully recorded in Chinese. iFLYREC (an online service to convert audio to text) was used to translate the interviews into verbatim transcripts, and then the first author carefully proofread the verbatim transcripts. All transcripts were fully translated into English, a choice also driven by the fact that the second author does not speak Mandarin. The quotes in the manuscript were selected in joint decision by the first and second author. Some challenges were encountered in translating the interviews into English. For example, ‘guan’ in the Chinese context means care about, care for, educate, or discipline. When dealing with the translation of such rich concepts, we chose the most appropriate English concept in light of the context of the conversation, and marked it with parentheses.

Our coding procedure follows the six-step thematic analysis procedure of Braun and Clarke (2006), including familiarizing data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, and defining as well as naming themes. Table 2 shows sample of quotes and coding process. Specifically, the first author imported the transcripts into NVivo20 and repeatedly read as well as analysed the data, generating 12 initial codes describing fathers’ roles and practices. These codes include financial providers, role models, protectors, educators, disciplinarians, playmates, friends, caring practices, intimacy, emotional management, emotional expression, and companionship. These codes were carefully reviewed, and overlapping codes were merged to produce nine potential themes: financial providers, gender role models, protectors, disciplinarians, playmates, caregiving activities, emotional work, emotional expression, and companionship. Further, considering that some themes (e.g. fathers as playmates, protectors) were only sparsely visible in our data, 5 central themes were finally selected: (1) caregiving activities, (2) displaying emotions, (3) companionship, (4) financial providers, and (5) gender role models. Lastly, these themes were, according to our theory-driven approach, placed under the headers of the narrative of caring masculinity (1–3), the narrative of protective masculinity (4), and the narrative of masculine care (5).

Table 2. Sample of quotes and coding process.

Sample quotes	Initial codes	Sub-themes	Paternal masculinity
Nurturing activities such as changing nappies, cleaning the child after pooping, and bathing, I’m doing all of that (Yan).	Caring practices	Caregiving activities (28/30)^a	Caring masculinity
I kissed her forehead and read bedtime stories to her (Wan).	Intimacy	Displaying positive emotions (18/30)
I try to adjust my emotions and put myself in a very happy mood to interact with him (Jun).	Emotional management
Daddy loves you, and daddy misses you (Kun).	Emotional expression
I save more time to be with her (Yan).	Companionship	Companionship (16/30)
What I want to be with her is a friend (Wan).	Friends	(11/30)
As a father, the primary responsibility is to increase family income (Jay).	Financial providers	Financial providers (19/30)	Protective masculinity
Because you’re his father, it’s your duty to educate him (Jay).	Educators	(8/30)
Because you’re my son, I have to take care of (guan) you and be responsible for you (Zeng).	Disciplinarians	(6/30)
I have to provide him with a feeling of security (Yun).	Protectors	(5/30)
As a father, firstly, you have to teach him to act like a man so that he has basic gender awareness (Jian).	Role models	Gender role models (16/30)	Masculine care
My primary responsibility is to play with him (Wu).	Playmates	(10/30)

^aSignifies the number of retrievals (i.e. participants)/total retrievals of text related to the code.

Ethics

A uniform informed consent form was prepared, and verbal consent was achieved before every interview so that the interviewees understood that they could stop the interview at any time without any consequences. Research approval was received from the Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee/Social Science Sub-Committees of Nanjing University, under the number NJUSOC202307001. In this research, each participant was given a pseudonym to protect their anonymity.

The first author’s position as an unmarried, childless, and well-educated Chinese male in his thirties may have influenced the data collection. Being a male, especially a well-educated one, likely facilitated the recruitment of fathers from middle-class families. Also, being a peer of most of the respondents, in terms of age and cultural background, likely made it easier for respondents to share their stories because interviewer and interviewee share similar cultural contexts and growth experiences. Additionally, being a man without children and without any fathering experiences, may have made it easier to enact the role of ‘naive’ interviewer and to ask clarification questions. The second author is a white Dutch well educated mother in her forties. As she does not speak Mandarin, she was not involved in the data collection. As an outsider, but with personal experience in parenting, she was able to ask clarification-questions on the patterns found in the data, which likely helped in interpreting the findings, in particular with respect to their relevance to countries beyond China.

Findings

With the support and guidance of grandmothers and new-born-nannies (yuer sao), almost all of our respondents were (to some extent) participating in routine caregiving activities that have traditionally been considered the domain of women. Moreover, the men expressed that they realized the importance of providing companionship for their children and expressing emotions in childcare. Their narratives of caring practices, emotional support, and companionship embody elements of caring masculinity. However, none of the 30 respondents were entirely on the caring masculinity side of the spectrum. When talking about men’s roles as fathers, some men also clearly identified themselves as economic providers, with the latter reflecting the notions of protective masculinity. In other narratives, being a gender role model was a frequent theme, which we linked to the notion of ‘masculine care’. As such, the current research provides evidence that caring masculinities were omni-present in Chinese fathers’ narratives, but also reveals that these masculinities were always complemented with either protective masculinity or hybrid masculinities, in terms of masculine care. Therefore, the masculinities discussed by these Chinese fathers can best be labelled as a richer form of hybrid than was previously documented. Interestingly, 11 of the 30 fathers in our study even mentioned all three types of masculinities in their fathering narratives. This signals that Chinese fathers’ paternal masculinities may move towards even more multidimensional forms of hybrid masculinity. In what follows, we will discuss our findings on caring masculinities, protective masculinities, and masculine care subsequently.

The narrative of caring masculinity

The respondents in our study grew up in the 1980s and 1990s when the state-led planned economy shifted to a market economy. The increasingly globalized economy invigorated the market, but diminishing state provision of welfare has returned the responsibility of supporting the family and caring for the children to the individual parent (Li, 2018). Against this background, the family model ‘male breadwinners and female caregivers’ was prevalent in respondents’ original families. When recalling the interactions with their fathers, these men generally used words such as ‘strict father’, ‘traditional father’, ‘little communication’, ‘silent mountain’, and ‘male chauvinism’ to describe their fathers. They claimed it was a regret that they did not experience a close father-child relationship in their childhood. Therefore, they expressed the need to differentiate their paternal practices from their fathers and refuse to be stoic and stern fathers. In order to become a new father different from their parents, these men are actively embracing the idea of companionship (pei) and the value of emotions, along with their involvement in the care for children. Such traits are reflected in the notion of caring masculinity.

Involved in caregiving activities

Almost all our participants reported they (to some extent) engaged in caregiving activities such as feeding, clothing, changing diapers, making formula, holding the baby in appropriate positions, massaging the baby, coaxing the baby to sleep, and reading bedtime stories. For instance, Hu, an employee in state enterprises with a 10-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son, described his experience like this:

When I started changing my daughter’s diapers and dressing her, I didn’t know how to do it at all. Little by little, I learned more. Now doing that for my second child was easy for me.

Xing (30, with a 2-year-old daughter), who works for a public institution, described his story during his parental leave like below:

When my daughter woke up in the morning, I would do her washing and make her breakfast, such as cooking baby noodles. After eating, I would change her diaper and put on clean clothes, and then take her to visit her grandmother.

Providing companionship for children

The idea of pei (companionship), which means spending time with children, was prevalent in the fatherhood narratives.

I would take as much time as possible to pei (accompany) my children. I can’t imagine my oldest is 9 years old. Time goes by so fast. So now, whenever I have time, I will pei him. For example, I am willing to attend parent meetings and activities organized by the school. (Chao, 36, an IT programmer with a 9-year-old son and a 3-year-old son)

Hai’s quote below also underscores that providing companionship for their children is becoming an essential part of Chinese men’s understanding of fatherhood.

So, I now try to pei them (his two daughters) as much as possible. Even if it’s just to stay with them for a minute. In the past, our parents were too busy supporting the family and didn’t have time to guan (take care of) us. So, all I have to do now is to pei them. (Hai, 33, a secondary school teacher with a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old- daughter)

Displaying positive emotions

The ‘strict father and kind mother’ (yanfu cimu) used to be the ideal parenthood model in Chinese families, where ‘strict’ means that the father is not encouraged to interact with the child more closely (Li & Lamb, 2015). The image of paternal love is also commonly described as ‘a father’s love as silent as the mountain’ (fuai rushan). The men in our study, however, emphasized the importance of emotion as essential fathering practices and displayed positive emotional expressions to their children. This is in accordance with Elliott’s statement on caring masculinity, which places a high value on positive emotions that have no room in dominating hegemonic masculinity (Elliott, 2015).

First and foremost, verbal expressions and encouraging words become a direct way for most fathers to express their love to their child(ren). Narratives such as ‘Daddy loves you’, ‘Daddy loves you very much’, and ‘Daddy misses you so much’ were prevalent among respondents. Similar findings can be observed in Li’s (2020) recent work on Chinese fathers. Some men used intimate words such as ‘baobao or baobei’ (baby), ‘little princess’, and ‘little prince’ or repeated words such as ‘lele’ and ‘liuliu’ (the use of repeated words in the Chinese context implies a close parent-child relationship) as their child(ren)’s nickname. Other respondents stressed the importance of encouraging words as a daily paternal practice. For example, Yang, an accounting manager for a real estate company, described his interaction with his 7-year-old son like below:

When he goes to school in the morning, I will hug him and say, come on! Son, a nice day begins; see you then. Doing so will bring him a happy mood. At home, sometimes I hug him and say, I give you strength. When he goes to bed, I will turn off the light for him and say, good night, daddy loves you. He also replies, love you too. I do this deliberately to make him feel my love. In fact, kids are very sensitive. You love him, and you have to love him in action. A father’s love for his kid has to be expressed verbally. Otherwise, the kid can’t feel your love.

These findings, particularly regarding emotional expression, are consistent with Dermott’s (2008) work on British middle-class fathers and recent empirical research on contemporary Chinese fathers (Li, 2020; Xu & Yeung, 2013). Furthermore, a number of fathers make an effort to perform emotional work in the father-child relationship. Emotional labour is defined by Hochschild (2012, p. 7) as ‘the management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display’, such as the smiling service of a flight attendant. Hochschild (2012, p. 7) uses the synonymous terms emotion work to refer to these same acts done in a private context. The narratives that respondents managed their feelings to create loving family dynamics were common in the interviews. The following quote serves as examples:

No matter what happened outside, back home, I was able to give my kid the best impression and mood. I don’t want to bring things about work into the home. When I come home from work and open the door, I quickly adjust my mood and immediately get into the environment of joyfully playing with my kid. (Dou, 31, a Pharmacy salesman with a 2-year-old son)

The narrative of protective masculinity

Financial provision has traditionally been a major source of masculine identity, especially for fathers (Brandth & Kvande, 1998). When spoken about men’s responsibilities as fathers, 19 of the 30 participants listed protecting their families’ financial security as one of their responses. They defined good fatherhood as career success and the ability to provide financial support for the family. For example, Jay (31, a public institution employee with a 3-year-old son) comes from Chengdu, a developed city in southwest China. He placed great importance on their child’s education, while the financial cost of enrolling their child in quality schools can be high in the local area. This means he needed to have an excellent financial situation. Jay stressed, ‘The money is a reality. As a father, the primary responsibility is to increase family income’.

Similarly, Chao stated, The standard of a good father is to earn money, and do my best to provide them (his wife and children) with the good material base so that they can live a decent life and live well.

In addition, several fathers made a distinction between the ‘big aspect’ and ‘small aspect’ (‘datou’ and ‘xiaotou’) when it came to the daily expenses of their child(ren). The ‘big aspect’ is the father’s responsibility which refers to the more expensive part of daily expenses, such as the child’s kindergarten tuition; the ‘small aspect’ is seen as the mother’s responsibility, such as choosing and buying suitable clothes for the child.

These narratives of fathers as financial providers are in line with the findings of other studies concerned with the role of fathers (Cao & Lin, 2019; Liu & Zheng, 2021; Xu & Yeung, 2013), which shows that the notion that fathers are good providers is still prevalent in Chinese societies. Particularly driven by the high cost of modern childrearing, the role of fathers is highlighted by their financial provision for children’s development (Xiao, 2016), which to some extent rationalizes the importance of Chinese fathers’ financial contributions to their families.

Although these men view financial providers as an important role of fathers, none of the respondents in our study believed that doing housework and caring for children were female tasks and that men who did these tasks were not manly enough. On the contrary, they all thought that men should participate in the routine caregiving activities of childcare.

The narrative of masculine care

Interestingly, as we did not see this pattern in other studies on the topic of paternal masculinities, the participants in our study highlighted the importance of being a gender role model as a key element of their fathering identities. In this sense, they belong to the unique fathers that Pleck (2010) described. This finding is consistent with the notion of masculine care by Brandth and Kvande (1998). This discourse was frequently repeated in the narratives of 16 respondents. In general, participants did not assess the importance of father involvement from the perspective of gender equality, but rather to cultivate the maleness of their child(ren). Dai (34, middle-level manager with a 4-year-old son) shared experiences on how to strengthen his child’s gender identity:

I will develop his character to be what a boy should be. I will fight with him, pretend to fight with him, and compete with him so that he develops a boy’s character. After all, boys have to be competitive … My training for him is to let him know that boys are different from girls and what role boys play in the family. I will communicate with him. I said, Daddy goes to work, makes money, and earns money to support our family.

Also, Dai stressed, ‘if a father is absent for a long time, the child will be a little bit sissy, a little bit of a pussy, doing things or talking like a girl’. As a result, he used words that sound more masculine such as manly(gang) to describe his child’s personality to justify his involvement.

Even those fathers who only have daughter(s) are also perpetuating traditional gender attitudes in taking care of their child(ren). Yan (29, operation manager), who has a 2-year-old daughter, vividly described his thoughts:

A daughter should grow up in loving family dynamics. My duty is to create more romance and love for her. If my child were a son, he would have to develop some masculine and other traits. I will take him to participate in some adventurous sports, to develop his courage and precision. However, there is no need to cultivate these traits for a daughter.

In addition, these respondents are deeply convinced that fathers and mothers have different influences on their child(ren). They mentioned that they themselves deliberately display certain traditional masculine behaviours in the father-child relationship and avoid behaviours that might increase the tendency of children to develop feminine behaviours. Ray (35, a customer manager with a 6-year-old son) shared his view on the influence of fathers and mothers on their child, for instance:

I think his mother is a little bit more feminine. Feminine is not a derogatory term. Just to describe her a little bit more tender. As a father, I try to be strong because I intentionally observe his mother’s influence on him, and then I influence him towards the opposite direction. He can be gentle, but he should still behave masculine and strong as a boy. So, the masculine, decisive traits of the father can influence the child to a certain extent, and the mother is more gentle or meticulous.

The discourse of gender role models reiterates the different divisions of gender roles in child care. These men identified their roles as fathers as complementary to mothers’ roles and expected to be gender role models for their child(ren). In particular, for a father with a son, it naturally becomes the father’s responsibility to cultivate his child’s manhood. These narratives suggest that ‘parenting does not mean mothering’ and that men have their own platform in child care, which supports the idea of the unique father (Pleck, 2010).

Discussion

This paper is concerned with how Chinese fathers in urban dual-earner families talk about their paternal masculinity. Drawing on qualitative data from 30 fathers in urban Chinese families, our study reveals that the paternal masculinity of contemporary Chinese fathers is a hybrid version that encompasses caring masculinities, but also aspects of protective masculinity and/or masculine care. As such, our study suggests that amongst Chinese urban fathers a new and more multidimensional form of hybrid masculinity might be present.

Compared to rural fathers who stressed the role of breadwinner (Liu & Zheng, 2021) and rural-to-urban migrant fathers who emphasized the emotional connection with their children (Choi & Peng, 2016), our study found that the masculinity performed by urban middle-class fathers was a hybrid form. These men valued providing financial support to their families, expressing paternal emotions to their children, and engaging in hands-on caregiving practices – activities which are invisible in narratives of rural fathers and migrant fathers. Both rural Chinese fathers and urban Chinese fathers place a great value on being financial providers, which might be due largely to Chinese cultural traditions. The role of breadwinning constitutes a central component of ideal Chinese fatherhood and Chinese masculinity in the context of Confucian culture (Cao & Lin, 2019; Li & Jankowiak, 2016).

In line with studies that understand men’s gender identity in childcare through the lens of caring masculinity (Brandth & Kvande, 2018; Graf & Wojnicka, 2021; Lee & Lee, 2016; Sambath, 2022), our findings indicate that Chinese fathers are actively engaged in hands-on and nurturing caregiving practices. Also, they reshaped the traditional ‘disciplinarian’ role into a ‘companion’ and realized the importance of spending time with their children. This can be explained by the social changes of contemporary urban China. More specifically, recent economic reforms, gender equality, and family planning policies have challenged the patriarchal Chinese families’ system and have contributed to traditional Chinese men to be men who embrace more engaged, more nurturant, and emotionally expressive fatherhood (Li & Lamb, 2015). Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the government has made efforts to place importance and emphasis on gender equality. Particularly in the late 1970s, the new family value of building a ‘democratic harmonious new family’ that was promoted by the government indicated that men should share household chores and childcare duties with their partners (Tan, 2020). Also, in the current Chinese context, the idea of the father as a nurturer has the potential to change the traditional stern and disciplinarian father into a more responsible, caring, and emotional father (Tan, 2020). In addition to these changes, the changing labour market, such as the reality of the universality of working mothers in middle-class families, contributes to Chinese men are more physically engaged in childcare (Li & Lamb, 2015).

While Elliott (2015) theorizes that values from the realm of care, such as positive emotions, are one of the cores of caring masculinity, in empirical studies on caring masculinity, the value of emotions is under-emphasized compared to the value of caring practices. The present study highlights the emotional aspects of caring masculinity by presenting the emotional expressions and emotional work in father-child interactions. Respondents in our study provide emotional support for their children through verbal expressions and encouraging words, and actively display emotional work in childcare. These practices embody the emotional traits that caring masculinity has affirmed and indicate that emotion has become an essential element of Chinese fatherhood. The narrative of caring masculinity amongst urban Chinese fathers also provides evidence for the ‘intimate turn’ that has emerged in Chinese families, which in Evans (2010) study is thought to exist solely between mothers and daughters. It also supports Yan’s (2018) argument of ‘new familyism’ in Chinese society.

Our findings, particularly the narrative on gender role models, provide a local perspective for understanding the application of masculine care in fatherhood research in non-Western societies. In Western-based studies on fatherhood, masculine care highlighted the fact that the father’s task was different from the maternal practices. It mainly centred on teaching children independence or participating in outdoor activities (Brandth & Kvande, 1998). However, the societal context in China differs from that in Western societies, where gender equality has become a fundamental characteristic of society. In recent years, however, the discussion of the ‘boy crisis’ or ‘masculinity crisis’ has been prevalent in Chinese society. A major feature in this discussion is the emergence of feminized patterns of behaviour among boys (Lin & Macan Ghaill, 2019). Several Chinese education experts, such as Xiaoyun Sun, the chief family education expert at the Chinese Youth and Children Research Centre, have launched the ‘Saving Boys’ (zhengjiu nanhai) initiative (Sun et al., 2010). It is likely that participants’ views on fathers as explicit gender role models are shaped against this background.

Our findings expand the understanding of hybrid masculinity. In previous research on hybrid fatherhood, Randles (2018) has captured hybrid masculinity’s economic and emotional elements. However, our study reveals other aspects of hybrid masculinity, such as the combination of nurturing and masculine care. This shows the ambivalent attitudes of Chinese fathers towards fatherhood. On the one hand, they believed that they could care for their children as their spouses did and be involved in caregiving tasks that were traditionally seen as the domain of women. While on the other hand, they held the idea that men and women have different gendered divisions of labour in child care, and such roles as male role models that cannot be replaced by mothers are a father’s unique contribution to parenting. The hybrid masculinity constructed by Chinese fathers also supports Bridges and Pascoe’s (2014) idea that hybrid masculinity perpetuates the system of gender inequality in a new and softer way by fortifying social and symbolic boundaries.

This study has some limitations that readers should consider. All the respondents in our study were well-educated, which likely resulted in them being able to express their thoughts more richly when discussing their role as a father compared to those men with fewer years of education. Also, some traits of hegemonic masculinity, such as hiding feelings, which may hinder emotional expression, are relatively more frequently present amongst the lower educated (Liu & Zheng, 2021). Subsequent research could investigate whether and in what way emotions are also a prominent theme in the discourse of paternal identity amongst fathers with lower levels of educational attainment. In addition, findings from this study may not be generalized to Chinese fathers living in all urban areas in China, as the gender division within households is likely more egalitarian in southwestern Chinese cities (particularly in Chengdu and Chongqing) than in northern Chinese cities. For example, in Chengdu and Chongqing, ‘the hen-pecked husband’(paerduo) is used to describe local men, representing the image of a family-oriented and caring man. This implies that these men are more willing to actively share housework and childcare with their partners. As a consequence, it might be the case that the findings from our study are a slight overestimation of the presence of hybrid masculinity and caring masculinity in China. We recommend future studies to replicate our findings in a more representative sample of Chinese cities. Finally, given the current changes in childcare policies (particularly parental leave) in China, we encourage future research to investigate to what extent and in what way these policy changes influence men’s fathering beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

Our study found that urban Chinese fathers’ understanding of paternal identities and practices contained both ‘new and old’ aspects. Regarding the ‘new’, urban Chinese fathers were physically and emotionally involved in routine caregiving activities and valued the idea of companionship in childcare. This suggests that they are embracing the idea of the ‘new father’ and caring masculinity, thus contributing to improving gender equality in parenting. In terms of the ‘old’, these men perceived their roles as fathers as good providers and gender role models, which to some extent reinforced gender inequalities in parenting norms. In sum, Chinese fathers construct a hybrid version of paternal masculinity by combining these different elements, which reveals that some elements of hegemonic masculinity and caring masculinity can be simultaneously embraced by Chinese fathers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the China Scholarship Council [202206190101]; Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province [KYCX22_0028].

Notes on contributors

Liang Wang

Liang Wang is a PhD candidate in the School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Nanjing University, China. He is also a visiting PhD student in the Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Liang has a strong research interest in fatherhood, emotional labour, and gender studies. Currently, his PhD research seeks to understand how urban Chinese fathers display intimacies and construct masculinities in their fathering practices.

Renske Keizer

Renske Keizer is a full professor in Family Sociology at the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Keizer’s primary research interest is the role that families play in strengthening, maintaining, or weakening social inequalities. Her research straddles sociology, pedagogical sciences, demography, and developmental psychology.

Appendix A:

The interview topic list

Basic information

Demographic information: Age, occupation, education level, marital status, information about partner (such as age, occupation, education level), number and age of the child, and type of family.

Fathering practices

1. What is the gender division of labour in your family? Why is there such a gender division of labour?

2. Do you participate in the physical care of your child? What activities do you undertake?

3. What activities do you undertake at home with your child?

4. Do you express your love to your child and if so in what way?

5. Do you console your child’s disappointed emotion, ad do you encourage and praise your child’s good performance, if so in what way?

Fatherhood roles

• (6) What roles do you think fathers should play in the family?

• (7) What kind of father do you think is a good father?

• (8) What do you think is the most important thing you should teach your child as a father?

• (9) What roles do you think your father played when you were a child?

• (10) How would you describe and evaluate your father?

• (11) How do you think you have changed compared to your father? Why have these changes occurred?

• (12) What is your attitude towards the development of masculinity or femininity in your child?

• (13) Do you think there is a difference between the influence of the mother and the father on the child? If so, what are the differences?

• (14) How would you evaluate your role as a father?