Why are caring masculinities so difficult to achieve? Reflections on men and gender equality in Portugal

Why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? Re lec ions on men and gende equali y in Po ugal Vanessa Cunha Leono Be encou Rod igues Ri a Co eia Susana A alaia Ka in Wall 13. 304 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in in oduc ion The eme gence o ca ing masculini ies in many pa s o he wo ld has been assessed in se e al epo s since he ea ly 2000s, all o hem highligh ing he i uous impac o his eshape in male iden i ies and p ac ices o gende equali y imp o emen s in socie ies (Connell 2003; No wegian Minis y o Child en and Equali y 2009; Scambo e al. 2013; Le o e al. 2015; Heilman e al. 2017; San os e al. 2016; Wall e al. 2017). Indeed, a e decades o women demanding equal igh s and oppo uni ies and o he end o male domina ion and i s ha m ul cos s in hei li es, ca ing masculini ies a ise as a s ong ally agains hegemonic masculini y.1 Wha a e ca ing masculini ies? Acco ding o a ecen a emp o p omo e he concep , by combining con ibu ions om c i ical s udies on men/masculini ies and eminis ca e heo y, ca ing masculini ies “can be seen as masculine iden i ies ha exclude domina ion and emb ace he a ec i e, ela ional, emo ional, and in e dependen quali ies o ca e (…); a c i ical o m o men’s engagemen in gende equali y because doing ca e wo k equi es men o esis hegemonic masculini y and o adop alues and cha ac e is ics o ca e ha a e an i he ical o hegemonic masculini y” (Ellio 2016, 252, 254). So, besides he commi men o ca e wo k and gende equali y, ca ing masculini ies en ail a mind ul e usal o hegemonic masculini y and inhe en p e oga i es (p i ileges, domina ion, powe ), as well as o he plu al mani es a ions o “complici masculini y” ha i assumes (Aboim 2010). Mo eo e , an all-inclusi e pe spec i e enligh ens he mani old dimensions o he ans o ma i e p ocess in ol ed in ca ing masculini ies, om ca e wo k in amily li e o ca e wo k in p o essional li e, om aking ca e o o he s o aking ca e o onesel . The e o e, ca ing masculini ies come up “in he e e yday li es o men, when hey ake o e ca egi ing p ac ices, especially wi hin amilies o when hey wo k in ‘ eminine’ p o essions o ca e (…), 1 The powe ul concep o hegemonic masculini y is a he co e o Connell’s wo k on masculini ies and pa ia chal gende o de , and i was ecen ly eapp aised by he au ho (Connell and Messe schmid 2005). E en i his concep has been c i icised in ela ion o i s scope o unde s anding phenomena om local o global scale, as well as he plu ali y o masculini ies ha a e lodged unde he a chway o hegemony (Aboim 2010; Beasley 2008), i ’s ne e heless indispensable o comp ehending in e / in a-gende powe ela ions and inequali ies. Fo a ho ough insigh in o Connell’s wo k, see Aboim (2010). why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 305 [which i is c ucial o widen] he concep o ‘ca e’ owa ds ‘sel -ca e’ (awa eness o heal h o emo ional issues, deepe iendships, less isk- aking beha iou , e c.)” (Scambo e al. 2013, 2). Las ly, his heo e ical backd op has pinpoin ed he na ow scope o pe cei ing hegemonic o complici masculini ies exclusi ely as a place o p i ilege and powe encompassing well-acknowledged cos s o women and non-hegemonic men (Aboim and Vasconcelos 2013; No wegian Minis y o Child en and Equali y 2009). Indeed, “ iolence (agains o he s and sel ), high- isk beha iou , lack o sel -ca e, poo heal h, and impo e ished ela ionships” (Ellio 2016, 246) a e he cos s ha dominan men ha e o pay. Bu e en i ca ing masculini ies unde pin imp o emen s in men’s physical, men al and in e pe sonal domains o li e (Ellio 2016; Scambo e al. 2013, Le o e al. 2015), eme ging “as a cen al pa h o wa d, and one ha is inc easingly aken up in p ac ice” (Scambo e al. 2014, 552), his ci iliza ional ans o ma ion is a om being ully achie ed (as con i med by pe sis en gende inequali ies). The d i ing o ces o he ade-o in masculini ies a e a om being ully seized. D awing on he abo e concep ual amewo k and he assump ion ha pa ia chal gende o de s ha e been challenged in Po ugal, bo h in he public and p i a e sphe es, a leas since he 1974 Re olu ion (Almeida 2011), his chap e o e s a e lec ion upon he whi e pape Men and Gende Equali y in Po ugal (Wall e al. 2017). The ocus he e is on he cos s o masculini y in men’s li es and he obs acles – in e playing a ins i u ional, ela ional and indi idual le els – o he consolida ion o ca ing masculini ies. The whi e pape is he main p oduc o he p ojec “Men’s Roles om a Gende Equali y Pe spec i e”2, which in ended o aise awa eness on he need o include men in he discussion o gende equali y in Po ugal. This was done by acking ecen changes in male oles and assessing hei con ibu ion o de elopmen s in his ealm; p omo ing a majo deba e wi h he ele an social agen s; and se ing ou a se o ecommenda ions o decision-make s in o de o enhance a gende equali y agenda. In line wi h in e na ional epo s and indings, he whi e pape concludes ha “abolishing inequali ies be ween 2 This p ojec was unde aken in 2014-2016 wi hin a pa ne ship be ween he Commission o Equali y in Labou and Employmen , as he p omo e , and he Ins i u e o Social Sciences o he Uni e si y o Lisbon, as he scien i ic pa ne . I was unded by he Financial Mechanism o he Eu opean Economic A ea, eea G an s, P og amme A ea p 07 – Mains eaming o Gende Equali y and Wo k-Li e Balance, wi h he Commission o Ci izenship and Gende Equali y as he p og amme ope a o . 306 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in men and women in ol es p o ound changes no only in he condi ion o women bu also o men, in pa icula in e ms o iden i y and he ways o being a man in p i a e li e (…), by b eaking up he adi ional pa ia chal model o masculini y and pu ing o wa d a new model o masculini y which is mo e ca ing and egali a ian” (Wall e al. 2017, 15). Ca ing masculini ies linked o pa en ing and pa ne ship a e in mo ion in Po uguese socie y. This is la gely a esul o public policy ha , om he mid-1980s onwa ds, has been en olling men in ea ly childca e, wi h he aim o imp o ing wo k- amily econcilia ion in dual-ea ne couples wi h young child en and, mo e ecen ly, explici ly upholding gende equali y as a goal w i en down in lea e egula ion since 2009.3 Men ha e been esponding o he challenge by inc easingly assimila ing and displaying a nu u ing ole in child en’s li es (Aboim and Ma inho 2006; Wall, Cunha and Ma inho o hcoming; Ma inho 2011; San os e al. 2016; Wall 2014, 2015; Wall, Aboim and Cunha 2010; Wall, Aboim and Ma inho 2007). The ise in he ake-up o pa en al lea e, he ade-o in he ime alloca ed o paid and unpaid wo k, and he g ea e sha e o household asks a e clea e idence o he consolida ion o ca ing and mo e egali a ian masculini ies in Po ugal. This ongoing cul u al change, ans o ma i e o male iden i ies, pa en ing p ac ices and amily dynamics, is also suppo ed by a ou able gende - ole a i udes, especially among indi iduals in amily- o ma ion ages wi h seconda y and e ia y educa ion, acco ding o issp20124 (Ramos, A alaia and Cunha 2016; Wall e al. 2017). In ac , bo h he ideas o equal sha ing o household asks and o he a he ’s impo an ole in childca e ha e been subs an ially suppo ed. The e is also conside able app o al o key policy measu es ha s eng hen he a he ’s ca ing ole. The e is ex ensi e ecogni ion o he plen i ul bene i s o he a he ’s ake-up o pa en al lea e, no only o men’s, women’s and child en’s indi idual and ela ional well-being, bu also as a boos e o gende equali y and domes ic balance among couples. B ie ly, majo changes a e happening in he a i udes owa ds men as ca egi e s and pa ne s, as well as in he way a he s display a nu u ing ole and make sense o i . These 3 The Dec ee-law 91/2009 o Ap il 9 h de ines and egula es he p o ec ion in pa en hood. 4 The Po uguese issp2012 “Family and Changing Gende Roles” was only adminis e ed in 2014 and coun ed on he co- unding o he p ojec “Men’s Roles in a Gende Equali y Pe spec i e’” Unde his p o ocol, an addi ional module was p oduced on he a i udes o he esiden popula ion conce ning he na ional legisla ion in o ce, o unde discussion, ha endo ses gende equali y in he public and p i a e sphe es, including in he ield o lea e policy. why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 307 de elopmen s a e in une wi h “ he objec i es ou lined in he law go e ning he p o ec ion o pa en hood, i. e. econciling amily and wo k on he basis o gende equali y, he child’s well-being and he ‘ha moniza ion o ca ee and amily esponsibili ies’ be ween men and women” (Wall e al. 2017, 40). Howe e , e en i his means ha lea e policy mo ed by hose p inciples is essen ial o p omo ing men’s in ol emen in ea ly childca e and upg ading gende equali y in amily li e, he ca ing masculini ies’ e olu ion is a om achie ed. As men ioned abo e, ca ing masculini ies a e no con ined o pa en ing iden i ies and p ac ices, hey comp ise a much mo e comp ehensi e alue o ca e (including sel -ca e) de ian o dominan models o masculini ies in di e en ealms o li e and amewo ks o in e pe sonal ela ionships o e he li e cou se. F om childhood o old age, and in many a enas o men’s iden i y and daily exis ence – om school o labou ma ke , om amily li e o heal h and iolence – men and boys ha e o cope wi h he cos s o being excluded om socialisa ion o ca e wo k and o being ecognised as (compe en ) ca egi e s. Ca ing masculini ies emain, he e o e, an en e p ise ull o obs acles. unde s anding he obs acles o ca ing masculini ies Like o he epo s ha app aised men’s con ibu ion o gende equali y in di e en domains o social exis ence (No wegian Minis y o Child en and Equali y 2009; Scambo e al. 2013), he whi e pape po ayed ou main a enas – amily and wo k- amily econcilia ion, labou ma ke , educa ion, and heal h/ iolence. I also un eiled key obs acles ha hinde he h i ing o ca ing masculini ies: he e usal o gi ing up hegemonic p i ileges, like hose esul ing om male leading posi ion in he labou ma ke ; he ha m ul cos s o hemsel es o dominan o ms o masculini y “de ined by physical s eng h, powe , domina ion and agg ession” (Scambo e al. 2014, 562); and he ins i u ional and in e ac ional ambi alences o se backs ega ding men’s ole in amily and p o essional ca egi ing. Common o all hese obs acles, we may g asp he su ep i ious bu powe ul ole o gende s e eo ypes, which mo i a es p ejudice and disc imina ion, by excluding men om (sel -)ca e. Gende s e eo ypes a e de ined as a se o s uc u ed and sha ed belie s based on he speci ici ies o being a man in con as wi h being a woman 308 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in (Amâncio 1994). They a e impu ed o sexual di e ences ( Connell 2002) and e e o cha ac e is ics, a ibu es, beha iou , p e e ences and oles associa ed wi h and belie ed o be app op ia e o he masculine and eminine iden i ies (Deaux and LaF ance, 1998, ci ed in La anjei a e al. 2002). The e o e, gende s e eo ypes ake on a desc ip i e unc ion, whe eby male and emale cha ac e is ics place limi s on he oles and esponsibili ies ega ded as sui able o men and women, boys and gi ls. Addi ionally, hey ha e a p esc ip i e unc ion o gende oles as, e en implici ly, hey con ey ways o ac ing. The in e nalisa ion o commonly-sha ed gende ep esen a ions – bo h in in e pe sonal ela ionships and a an ins i u ional le el – shapes expec a ions, alues, beha iou , decision-making, expe iences and oppo uni ies (Ca aco e al. 2015). The e o e, ca ing masculini ies can be seen as a ansg essi e social demand ha challenges deep- oo ed gende s e eo ypes. boys and socialisa ion o ca e whi e pape ecommenda ion: To socialize and educa e ea ly in li e o gende equali y and o he alue o male ca e (Wall e al. 2017, 6). P ima y socialisa ion usually akes place in he amily and has a pa icula ly impo an ole in inculca ing s e eo ypical models o beha iou and iden i y du ing ea ly childhood (Fon aine 1990, quo ed in Ca aco e al. 2015). Seconda y socialisa ion, in u n, akes place in school, whe e he child encoun e s o he se s o e e ences and social lea ning which, h ough s e eo yped messages, lead o he cons uc ion o masculini y and eminini y (Ca i o and A aújo 2013). This sec ion o he chap e highligh s he mos signi ican ea u es o amily and school con ex s ha make hem key- e i o ies o he ep oduc ion o gende s e eo ypes and, he e o e, o keeping boys away om ca egi ing skills and ca ing masculini ies. The cen al ole o pa en s in socialisa ion jus i ies seeing hem as powe ul playe s in he gende game, in he sense ha hey end o ep oduce gende - s e eo yped expec a ions (Lynch and Feeley 2009). F om oys o kinds o play, om ypes o in e ac ion o expec ed beha iou , skills and choices, he p ima y socialisa ion a home shapes boys and gi ls and de e mines wha being a man o being a woman means (o is expec ed o mean), and wha kind o skills men and women a e expec ed o ha e. A ecen bbc expe imen has demons a ed why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 309 ha when aced wi h an unknown child, jus aking in o accoun he clo hes hey ha e on, people make use o a se o gende s e eo ypes ha guide he in e ac ion wi h he child, he kind o oys chosen and he kind o play used5, clea ly showing ha bo h men and women, when in e ac ing wi h a child wi h gende ed-male clo hes, choose mo e spa ial awa eness o games and oys equi ing physical con idence ( obo s, ca s o puzzle games), while when in e ac ing wi h a gende ed- emale clo hes child, hey o en choose a doll o so oys. Scien i ic s udies ha e been p oducing simila esul s, suppo ing he idea ha pa en s and o he signi ican adul s ep oduce a adi ionally gende ed childhood (choice o oys, clo hes, ac i i ies and s yles o play), in which hey seek o ensu e ha boys will be boys (Kane 2012), pushing hem away om ca ing- ela ed oys o ac i i ies. The impac o his gende ed pa en al in luence becomes e iden when child en show s e eo ypical oy p e e ences, which ha e been p o en o occu ea ly in de elopmen , a leas om 9 mon hs onwa ds (Alexande , Wilcox and Woods 2009; Todd, Ba y and Thommessen 2016). S udies based on in an s’ isual p e e ences (Alexande e al. 2009) and on obse a ions o in an s and oddle s “playing alone” (Todd e al. 2016) e eal ha boys ha e mo e in e es and spend mo e ime playing wi h a ca , a uck o a digge oy han wi h a doll o a cooking po . I is in e es ing o no ice ha o boys, bu no o gi ls, his p e e ence inc eases wi h age (Todd e al. 2016). This sex di e ence can be explained as a esul o he obse a ion o o he s’ beha iou and expec a ions in he socialisa ion p ocess, h ough which boys, no only inc ease hei knowledge o gende - yped beha iou , bu also ealise he social c i icism ha exis s a ound i and which is, ac oss acial and social backg ounds, g ea e o boys han o gi ls (Kane 2006). This p essu e owa ds a dominan model o masculini y is highligh ed in a Na ional Reading Plan book o he 8 h g ade on he uneasiness o school-aged child en wi h ega d o socie y’s gende s e eo ypical expec a ions.6 5 A ailable a h p://www.bbc.com/news/a /magazine-40936719/gende -speci ic- oys-do-you-s e eo ype-child en. 6 In his s o y, an eigh -yea -old boy ells his six-yea -old sis e (who is always complaining abou women’s gende disc imina ion): “Ha e you e e hough ha dad is he one who has o wo k all day long in he s o e o make money o us? Ha e you e e hough ha he is he one who always a i es home a nigh , i ed and sick o pu ing up wi h cus ome s? You’ e lucky you a e a gi l (…). You hink being a boy is cool? Do you hink I wouldn’ wan people o s op annoying me wi h wha is being a man and no being a man?” (Gomes 2017). 310 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in Addi ionally, he li e a u e e eals ha e en pa en s who ha e a p og essi e a i ude o gende equali y end o be “gende ap[ped]” and, hus, in luence hei child en owa ds gende ed iden i ies and skills (Kane 2012) and encou age hei school ajec o ies and oca ional choices in a s e eo ypical way, which, in u n, la e on impac s on labou ma ke ho izon al seg ega ion (Lynch and Feeley 2009). As ega ds school con ex , he e a e di e en en i onmen ea u es ha make i a key- e i o y o ep oducing gende s e eo ypes. To desc ibe i s ea u es, one has o e e o he mul iple ways h ough which, bo h explici ly and implici ly, school en i onmen sends s e eo ypical messages con eyed by educa ional p ac ices, namely ex books and in o mal/non- e bal in e ac ion and beha iou . These, along wi h expec a ions, ac i a e gende s e eo ypes by associa ing masculini y wi h skills and cha ac e is ics such as logical easoning, asse i eness, p o-ac i i y, compe i i eness and agg essi eness ha can be mo e associa ed wi h i ili y and he public sphe e; dis ancing he male ole om he p i a e sphe e, no p omo ing mo e empa hic, ela ional, al uis ic, ca egi ing skills. In con as , school con ines male and emale pupils wi h dis inc pe sonali ies, a ibu es, in e es s and mo i a ions o a single educa ional s a egy and e alua ion c i e ia based on a eminised image o a good s uden : he one who concen a es on s udying, is a en i e in class, comple es assigned asks, pe o ms well and whose beha iou e lec s calm accep ance o he ules. This ep esen a ion is close o he s e eo ypical cha ac e is ics o he emale: dependence, imi a ion, passi i y and con o mi y (Ca aco e al. 2015). Beyond he o mal cu iculum, which is w i en down and is objec i e, schools also ha e an in o mal o hidden cu iculum, which may ein o ce gende s e eo ypes h ough pe sonal in e ac ion and he way in which ime, space and esou ces a e o ganised and managed. School p ac ices and ou ines e eal belie s and a i udes which inco po a e gende disc imina ion and a e e iden in: di e en pe o mance and beha iou al expec a ions; de ined lea ning s a egies; he selec ion and o ganisa ion o cu icula and ex a-cu icula ac i i ies; and, “ he iden ifica ion o oca ional endencies and o ien a ions cha ac e ised by ‘na u al’ ap i udes” (Sil a and Saa ed a 2009; Ca aco e al. 2015). The social p essu e owa ds a hegemonic model o masculini y is also unde aken by pee s. Fo example, 3 o 4-yea -old child en e eal he in luence o pee s on gende ed- yped beha iou (Se bin e al. 1979; Wilansky-T ayno and Lobel 2008). Unde he in luence o he hegemonic model, boys in school, bo h in low and uppe classes neighbou hoods, adop why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 311 agg essi e beha iou o demons a e hei i ili y (Amâncio 2004). Indeed, being in ol ed in igh s is conside ed one o he equi emen s ha boys ha e o mee o demons a e hei masculini y (ano he one is playing oo ball) (Pe ei a 2012). The iolence in schools is ecu en and occu s on a daily basis, mos ly be ween male pupils (small he s, agg ession, in imida ion, pe secu ion and h ea s), gene ally by olde agains younge and s onge agains weake – “Pushing and sho ing”, “kicking”, “sandwiching” and “pe y he ” (Sebas ião, Al es and Campo 2003). The in luence o gende s e eo ypes on p ima y and seconda y socialisa ion ha occu s in amily and school con ex s has immedia e sho - e m e ec s on child en’s li es and long- e m e ec s in adul hood. Immedia e sho - e m e ec s become e iden while s ill a school in, a leas , wo ways. Fi s , gende s e eo ypes a e salien in boys’ specialisa ion and oca ional choices o mo e p ac ical, objec i e disciplines. And second, as a esul o he clash be ween gende ed acqui ed and in o mally expec ed a ibu es and hose o mally demanded om pupils in he school con ex , boys’ school ajec o ies in Po ugal a e ma ked by high e en ion and low pe o mance, which in a g adual, cumula i e way leads hem o d i away om school. Despi e he posi i e end o ime-se ies, in 2015 s ill mo e han 16% o young male adul s aged 18-24 had d opped ou o school be o e comple ing seconda y educa ion and he lea ning oppo uni ies ha i p o ides (Figu e 13.1) (Ca aco e al. 2015; Wall e al. 2017). Long- e m e ec s become e iden in men’s lowe educa ional le els, as compa ed o women’s, e en a young ages (Rod igues, Cunha and Wall 2017). In 2014, while mos women aged 25-34 had comple ed highe educa ion, mos men had comple ed basic schooling (Figu e 13.2). Li e a u e on his opic has shown ha , despi e all he educa ion policy- ela ed measu es adop ed in ecen decades – e. g. ex ension o compulso y schooling up o he age o 18 – and an o e all inc ease in educa ional le els, hose sex di e ences enla ge when socioeconomic backg ound is conside ed (Almeida and Viei a 2006; Almeida, And é and Cunha 2005). No wi hs anding, men’s lowe educa ional a ainmen le el is no a ba ie o hei inse ion in he labou ma ke , e en i in disquali ied jobs (Almeida and Viei a 2006; Almeida, And é and Cunha 2005; Wall e al. 2017). This phenomenon has se e al implica ions: i ex ends and ein o ces sex di e ences in educa ion and male de alua ion o schooling as an empowe ing ool owa ds knowledge; i p omo es dominan models o masculini y linked o a p o essional and economic iden i y a he han o a 318 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in O he obs acles o a mo e a - eaching de elopmen o ca ing masculini ies s em om he na ional legal o de , as al eady men ioned. The lea e policy ad ances owa ds he endo semen o he a he ’s igh and du y o ca e o young child en, culmina ed in he 2009 legisla ion ha es ablished he “ini ial pa en al lea e”, ideally o be sha ed by bo h pa en s, as a u he s ep owa ds gende equali y and sha ed wo k- amily econcilia ion. Despi e hese p og essi e p inciples and guidelines in he law, he mo he emained he main ecipien o lea e policy, no only due o he amoun o ime a ailable o he , bu also due o he ac ha he a he ’s eligibili y is dependen on he mo he ’s eligibili y o he ini ial pa en al allowance (Cunha, A alaia and Wall 2017; Rêgo 2012; Wall e al. 2017). This cons i u es a majo se back o a b oade unde s anding o men as p ima y ca egi e s, wi h equal en i lemen s and esponsibili ies in ca e wo k, and a handicap o men o nego ia e in he wo kplace he legi ima e igh (and du y) o ca e o hei child en (o o he dependen o sick amily membe s9). 9 E en i ecen na ional esea ch has been ocused on male ca egi ing expe iences in ega d o dependen ascendan s (Sil a 2017), his domain o amily ca e emains highly eminised (Wall e al. 2017). Indi iduals who disag ee ha men’s ake-up o pa en al lea es has posi i e e ec s in helping he a he o keep his job, by sex and age g oup (%) – Po ugal, 2014 Sou ce: Wall e al. 2017 (Calcula ions based on da a om issp 2012). Figu e 13.5 To al (18+) 18–29 30–44 Men Women 45–64 65+ 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 24 % 16 18 % 13 34 % 11 23 % 15 19 % 23 why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 319 Mo eo e , his legal bias echoes a powe ul, pe sis en and long- anging gende s e eo ype ha is deep- oo ed in socie y: he supe io alue o women’s ca e ha blossoms ou o emale “na u e” (Gaun 2006). Indeed, i a he s ha e de ini ely made hei way in childca e, and a e acknowledging i , he e is s ill a non-negligible p opo ion o men and women ha see a he s as less compe en o skilled ca egi e s o small child en. Younge gene a ions, hough (as well as he mos quali ied indi iduals), a e challenging he gende s e eo ype (Figu e 13.6), mos p obably due o he expe ience o gende decons uc ion p ocesses ha some couples ha e been h ough by sha ing ini ial pa en al lea e (Wall 2014; Wall, Cunha and Ma inho o hcoming). Bu he o emos objec i e obs acle ha he legal o de has se o ca ing masculini ies de elopmen in Po uguese socie y, in he p i a e sphe e, conce ns he massi e e enchmen o he a he ’s ole in child en’s li es a e di o ce o sepa a ion. The pos -di o ce pa en hood egula ion (Law 61/2008, 31 Oc obe ), which hos s he legal p esump ion o sha ed pa en al esponsibili y wi h ma e nal esidence and pa e nal alimony and isi a ion, is sus ained by he assump ion ha he e a e p esc ip i e gende oles o men Indi iduals who ag ee ha he child su e s when he a he does no ake pa in childca e and ha he a he is as capable as he mo he , by sex and age g oup (%) – Po ugal, 2014 Sou ce: Wall e al. 2017 (Calcula ions based on da a om issp 2012). Figu e 13.6 To al (18+) 18–29 30–44 The child su e s when he a he doesn’ ake pa in childca e The a he is as capable as he mo he o aking ca e o a baby less han one yea old Men Women 45–64 65+ 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 75 % 75 92 % 83 79 % 79 68 % 76 66 % 64 To al (18+) 18–29 30–44 45–64 65+ 53 % 60 66 % 72 58 % 78 51 % 58 38 % 39 320 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in and women in socie y: he men’s b eadwinning ole and he women’s ca ing ole. This e- adi ionalisa ion and e-gende isa ion o pos -di o ce amilies, undoub edly in coun e -cycle wi h mos ends o amily li e, has hea y cos s o men, women, and child en (Ma inho 2017; Ma inho and Co eia 2017; Ma inho 2018). In line wi h Ma inho’s s a emen s, he whi e pape iden i ied he cos s o pa en ing a e di o ce o mo he s and a he s: “An added ‘exclusi e’ esponsibili y alls on women in day- o-day li e, wi h a s ong impac on hei posi ion in he labou ma ke , in wo k- amily econcilia ion, in managing ime ables and he economic well-being o hei household. Men ind ha access o hei child en is se e ely cons ained, h ough a sys em o isi s which makes i impossible o sha e hei day- o-day li es and o main ain he ela ional p oximi y (…) [and] esponsibili y ‘ o he ac s o day- o-day li ing’ o hei child en” (Wall e al. 2017, 52-53). In he absence o be e s a is ical in o ma ion, he Censuses o 2001 and 2011 po ayed he e olu ion o lone-pa en amilies wi h child en below age 18. These amilies inc eased 48% in his pe iod, la gely as a esul o he ise in di o ce. In bo h yea s, lone- a he amilies ep esen ed 11% o he o al (Ma inho 2014). So, he pe sis ence o gende s e eo ypes in he ealm o pa en hood b ings a d awback in men’s li es, as an inc easing numbe o a he s a e being disengaged and excluded om hei child en’s daily exis ence a e di o ce o sepa a ion in Po uguese socie y. men and sel -ca e whi e pape ecommenda ion: To de elop mo e in-dep h s udies on he impac o social inequali ies on men’s heal h and unde ake awa eness campaigns based on he social de e minan s o men’s heal h. (Wall e al. 2017, 12) In con as o he p i ileges ga he ed in o he sphe es o li e, men’s heal h p oblems and lack o well-being a e ega ded as cos s o masculini y (Scambo e al. 2014). Al hough masculini y is no a ixed en i y (Connell 1995), boys and men’s physical and emo ional well-being ha e been a ec ed by he social cons uc ion o gende (P aze es e al. 2008; ec 2011). Men a e socialised o be s ong, independen and sel - elian , which implies physical oughness, isk- aking and hea y d inking. This hegemonic masculini y in luences he way why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 321 Sex a io in causes o dea h mainly a ec ing men (sex a io > 200) – Po ugal, 2014 Sou ce: Wall e al. 2017 (Calcula ions based on da a om ine/insa, Na ional Heal h Su ey). boys and men ela e o hemsel es, including o hei body and sense o sel - ca e. Following his line o easoning, being sick is he opposi e o wha a man should be. Men shouldn’ be weak o , wo se, e eal o o he s hei weakness, whe he physical o psychological. Fo ha eason, men epo less su e ing om heal h p oblems du ing hei li es han women (ine/insa 2016), in pa icula ch onic illnesses; bu ha e mo e se e e inju ies and spend longe pe iods ou o wo k due o heal h p oblems (Wall e al. 2017). In ac , men assess hei heal h s a us mo e posi i ely han women do: o e e y 100 women he e we e 112 men who s a ed hey we e in good o e y good heal h (Wall e al. 2017). A he same ime, men eso less o heal h se ices in a p e en i e way, in pa icula o medical appoin men s (bo h gene al o amily p ac i ione and specialis ), diagnosis, and sc eenings, bu ha e a highe exposu e o isk, including occupa ional isks. Men a e majo ic ims o mo al o disabling acciden s in he wo kplace (Scambo e al. 2014) and a e mos equen ly ic ims o iolen dea hs, such as suicide and oad a ic acciden s. This can be seen as a consequence, in men’s li e cou se, o he adop ion o isk beha iou and speci ic li es yles p o oundly ela ed o he social cons uc ion o masculini y, such as highe alcohol and obacco consump ion, d ug abuse, oad acciden s, dea hs om suicide, dea hs om hi -aids o calo ie ood in ake (Figu e 13.7). Figu e 13.7 Men al dis u bances and beha iou s due o alcohol use 1680 Malignan umou o he oesophagus 581 Malignan umou o he lip, mou h ca i y and pha ynx 531 T anspo acciden s 403 Ch onic illnesses o he li e 396 Malignan umou o he la ynx, acheia, b onchus and lungs 392 Human hi - ela ed illnesses 311 Suicides and sel -in lic ed inju ies 310 Malignan umou o he bladde 276 Acciden al poisoning by d ugs, medica ions and biological subs ances 252 Malignan umou o he li e and in a-hepa ic bilia y ac 248 Tube culosis 222 322 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in Sex a io a dea h, by age g oup (%) – Po ugal, 2015 Sou ce: Wall e al. 2017 (Calcula ions based on da a om ine/insa, Na ional Heal h Su ey) Figu e 13.8 85 o mo e yea s 80-84 yea s 75-79 yea s 70-74 yea s 65-69 yea s 60-64 yea s 55-59 yea s 50-54 yea s 45-49 yea s 40-44 yea s 35-39 yea s 30-34 yea s 25-29 yea s 20-24 yea s 15-19 yea s 10-14 yea s 5-9 yea s 1-4 yea s Less han 1 yea 56 224 199 211 219 221 129 95 254 215 144 182 77 188 262 253 285 191 161 Indeed, some o he mos ala ming da a in his domain e e s o men’s p ema u e mo ali y. Acco dingly, al hough he a e age li e expec ancy a bi h in Po ugal has inc eased o e he las decades o bo h sexes, s a is ics om 2014 show ha men ha e on a e age a six-yea lowe li e expec ancy han women (ine/insa 2016); and in 2015, male dea hs exceeded emale dea hs in almos all age g oups (Figu e 13.8). This ac is pa icula ly isible in he wo king ages (15-64 yea s), when he numbe o male dea hs a leas doubles emale’s (sex a io > = 200). Men’s p ema u e mo ali y dep i es socie y om a he s, pa ne s, sons, b o he s, wo ke s, wo k-colleagues and iends, a ec ing no only male economic sec o s such as indus y o cons uc ion, bu also he social and inancial posi ions o amilies, namely hose in which men a e he p ima y ea ne s o amily suppo (ec 2011). Ne e heless, in Po ugal, as elsewhe e in Eu ope (ec 2011), men ha en’ been a ge ed as a dis inc popula ion g oup in heal h ca e s a egic planning, and men’s heal h emains ela i ely o e looked by public policy. In con as , why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 323 women ha e been he a ge o speci ic p og ammes and measu es since he 1974 Re olu ion, no ably wi h ega d o sexual and ep oduc i e heal h. The massi e use o ho monal con acep ion by Po uguese women has dismissed men om con acep i e su eillance, pa icula ly in s able he e osexual pa ne ships. Acco dingly, he e is he pe cep ion, including among heal h p o essionals, ha sexual and ep oduc i e heal h doesn’ conce n men. In ac , in he Na ional Heal h Su ey 2014 (ine/insa 2016) ques ions on sexual and ep oduc i e heal h we e add essed o women only. Imp o emen s in men’s heal h condi ions a e mainly a esul o eu di ec i es on gene al heal h opics such as he end o obacco consump ion and he educ ion o a ic acciden s, la gely associa ed wi h d ugs and alcohol consump ion. Ne e heless, men’s speci ic heal h s a us emains a se ious conce n in e ms o public heal h ha needs u gen a en ion. As s a ed in he ec Repo , The S a e o Men’s Heal h in Eu ope: “In o de o achie e he highes s anda d o heal h, heal h policies mus ecognise ha women and men, owing o hei biological di e ences and hei gende beha iou , ha e di e en needs, obs acles and oppo uni ies” (ec 2011, 25). Di e ences in men’s and women’s heal h a e pa ly explained by di e ences in he way men and women li e hei li es and a end o heal h and illness. A he same ime, howe e , hey a e also he esul o he condi ions in which people g ow up and wo k (ec 2011). In his sense, men’s heal h is due o: (i) biological sex di e ences be ween male and emale; (ii) gende di e ences associa ed wi h he social cons uc ion o masculini y and eminini y (which a y in ime and ac oss cul u es); and (iii) social de e minan impac , such as educa ional a ainmen , ca ee , income le el, conjugal s a us and place o esidence (An unes 2010, 2012; Ca alho, Ma eus and Xa ie 2016; Fe nandes e al. 2012; Pe elman, Fe nandes and Ma eus 2012; San ana e al. 2015). These ac o s seem o a ec men’s access o heal h ca e, wi h di ec implica ions on hei heal h s a us and well-being. Tha ’s p obably why he abo e men ioned causes o male dea h a e mo e equen in men om disad an aged social backg ounds, in which access o adequa e medical ca e and he use o heal h se ices a e mo e limi ed (An unes 2010, 2012). F om his poin o iew, men’s heal h “is no jus an issue o gende equali y bu also a mo e undamen al equi y issue, which is he igh o all men o be able o li e a long and ul illing li e” (ec 2011, 24). 324 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in ca ing masculini ies, an incipien en e p ise ull o obs acles: concluding ema ks on he need o include men in he ealm o ca e wo k [T]he e is good eason o use he e m ‘ he ex eme gende ’ when e e ing o men. Men make up bo h he uppe echelons and he lowe s a a o socie y. They a e o e - ep esen ed in he powe o um, and ye hey also op he s a is ics o iolence, c iminali y and suicide. Eigh ou o en pupils wi h se ious beha iou al p oblems in schools a e boys. (No wegian Minis y o Child en and Equali y 2009, 8) The main aim o his chap e was o discuss and e lec on he obs acles o he consolida ion o ca ing masculini ies in Po uguese socie y. The heo e ical app oach amed he concep as a wide- anging commi men o male iden i ies and p ac ices o ca e wo k and gende equali y in public and p i a e ealms, along wi h non-con o mi y o compliance wi h dominan o ms o masculini y and he in insic p i ileges o hegemonic masculini y (Ellio 2016; Scambo e al. 2013, 2014). D awing on indings and ecommenda ions o he whi e pape Men and Gende Equali y in Po ugal (Wall e al. 2017), on di e en dimensions o male ca e – socialisa ion o ca e, p o essional ca e, amily ca e and sel -ca e –, his all-inclusi e pe spec i e on ca egi ing and ca e wo k helps us o unde s and he uneasy pa h ha men, and socie y as a whole, a e slowly aking owa ds ca ing masculini ies. Indeed, he e ha e been mo e asse i e s eps in pa en ing p ac ices, iden i ies and alues, la gely in esponse o challenging public policies ha ha e been pushing men in o ea ly childca e. Bu in o he domains o men’s li es, in hei p ac ices and iden i ies as pupils, wo ke s and in sel -ca e, embodying ca ing masculini ies emains an ex emely incipien en e p ise ull o obs acles, lacking social and public isibili y and awa eness. The a ionale o his s a e o a ai s is h ee old. Fi s ly, he “in isibili y bespeaks i s p i ilege” (Beasley 2008, 86), i. e. men’s likelihood o accep he bene i s o hei ad an aged posi ion in he labou ma ke , as well as hei likelihood o come and go in he ealm o unpaid wo k: his is s ill “a choice o men bu a mo al and social impe a i e o women” (Ellio 2016, 254). Secondly, he in isibili y esul s om he absence o e lexi i y conce ning he ubiqui ous na a i e on oca ional choice in he educa ional sys em and in he labou ma ke , no ably men’s lack o calling o “pink-colla ” p o essions. And hi dly, he in isibili y is linked o he se e e cos s o masculini y o men why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 325 and boys hemsel es in ields such as educa ion and heal h. As i i was he inescapable p ice hey ha e o pay jus because hey we e bo n male; a des iny ha hey ha e o accep , jus like women ha e o accep hei biological calling (Almeida 2003). He eupon, gende s e eo ypes and hei sc ip s o p ope boyhood and manhood (Amâncio 1994, 2004), s ill in line wi h g ound- ules o hegemonic masculini y (Connell and Messe schmid 2005), emain deeply ing ained in all social s a a. F om amilies o schools, om labou ma ke o heal h and policies, s e eo ypes a e ep oducing and legi ima ing p ejudice and disc imina ion in di e en sphe es o men’s and boys’ li es, by excluding hem om he ewa ds o ca e wo k. The social and public neglec o he cos s o masculini y o boys and men is e en mo e de imen al as hey a e doubly cumula i e in hei li es, unde pinning he “ex eme gende ” (No wegian Minis y o Child en and Equali y 2009): cos s a e cumula i e in an in e sec ional way. They a e une enly dis ibu ed among men acco ding o a se o socio-demog aphic a iables, wi h social con ex s in using di e en sc ip s o he display o masculini y. Cos s a e also cumula i e o e he li e cou se, om boyhood o olde ages, since he g owing engagemen in complici masculini ies na ows he oppo uni ies o challenging hegemonic masculini y and emb acing ca ing iden i ies and p ac ices (Wall e al. 2017). By making he cos s o masculini y o men isible, as well as he obs acles ha hinde hei g ea e commi men o he i uous ci cle o gende equali y and ca ing masculini ies, i becomes clea ha socie y as a whole is gi en he po en ial o change: “A educ ion in he ha m ul cos s o hegemonic masculini y can lead o bene i s o men, including inc eased physical and psychological heal h, longe li e expec ancy, inc eased quali y o social li e, be e amily ela ionships, and educed iolence be ween men” (Ellio 2016, 247). Mo eo e , he educ ion o hese cos s has ob ious bene i s o women and o child en, bu also o socie ies, as hey ha e o pay hea y p ices o he “sub-op imal ou comes” (Esping-Ande son 2009), i. e. he unde de eloped human po en ial and ul ilmen , and, when ex eme, he loss o human li es ha gende inequali ies encompass. The e o e, i i ’s al eady acknowledged ha gende equali y canno be accomplished wi hou men’s commi men , women do no bene i om i alone. Men also do. As Scambo and colleagues (2014, 569) wisely claim, “Men need gende equali y and gende equali y needs men”. 326 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in Howe e , achie ing his socie al deside a um en ails o e coming ambi alence owa ds he igh s and du ies o men o ca e o o he s and o hemsel es. And his implies a ull inclusion o men in he ealm o ca e wo k: socialising boys and young men o ca egi ing p ac ices and iden i ies; imp o ing he social alue o ca e wo k, whe he in he amily o in he occupa ional ield; and, ul ima ely, s iking a “ he hea o he s e eo ype”.10 In o he wo ds, he powe ul “concep ion ha ca ing is a emale a ibu e (…), [which] has kep women cap i e o hei ole as ca egi e s ( o small child en, bu also, by i ue o he ole i sel , o o he sick o dependen amily membe s) and has kep men emo ed om hese asks” (Wall e al. 2017, 53), and, he e o e, om he esponsibili ies and ewa ds o hands-on ca e. As his e lec ion has unde lined, e en i ca ing masculini ies a e making hei way in he ealm o pa en ing, men s ill ha e o cope wi h majo obs acles o achie e “op imal ou comes” (Esping-Ande son 2009) in his sphe e: he indi idual s e eo ypical disposi ions esul ing om socialisa ion; and he ins i u ional se ings, which ame daily exis ence (wo kplace, legal o de ), and esis emb acing ca ing masculini ies. 10 Ma ia do Céu da Cunha Rêgo, expe consul an on gende equali y, Focus Expe s (Wall e al. 2017, 51). why a e ca ing masculini ies so di icul o achie e? 327 ____________________________________ anessa cunha Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa [email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0003-2576-3111 ____________________________________ leono be encou od igues Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa leono [email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0002-3166-7655 ____________________________________ i a co eia Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa [email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0002-2127-0355 ____________________________________ susana a alaia Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa susana.a[email p o ec ed] o cid.o g/0000-0002-7271-6062 ____________________________________ ka in wall Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa [email p o ec ed]a.p o cid.o g/0000-0002-6452-8352 ____________________________________ e e ences aboim, S. 2010. Plu al Masculini ies. The Remaking o he Sel in P i a e Li e. Su ey/Bu ling on: Ashga e. aboim, S., P. Vasconcelos. 2013. Homens nas Ma gens: Idade, E nicidade, O ien ação Sexual e T ajec ó ias P o issionais na Cons ução de Masculinidades Não-hegemónicas. Lisbon: ics-ul. aboim, S., S. Ma inho. 2006. Men and Gende Equali y: The Role o Men and Fa he s in he P omo ion o Reconcilia ion o Wo k and P i a e Li e. Repo on Po ugal. Po ugal, G eece, No way, Cyp us: cidm/kei h. amâncio, L. 1994. Masculino e Feminino. A Cons ução Social da Di e ença. Po o: Edição A on amen o. amâncio, L. 2004. Ap ende a Se Homem. Cons uindo Masculinidades. Lisbon: Li os Ho izon e. alexande , G. M., T. Wilcox, and R. Woods. 2009. “Sex di e ences in in an s’ isual in e es in oys”. A chi es o Sexual Beha iou , 38, 427-433. almeida, A. N. 2003. “Família, conjugalidade e p oc iação: Valo es e papéis”. In Valo es Sociais: Mudanças e Con as es em Po ugal e na Eu opa. o gs. J. Vala, M. V Cab al, and A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa das Ciências Sociais, 50-93.