Fatherhood Practices and Shared Parental Leave: Advancing Gender Equity in Parenting

Abstract

In this article, we examine the theoretical concept of hybrid masculinities from a praxeological perspective, focusing on fathers as caring parents. Examining the development of parenting practices and parental knowledge exchange, we conducted couple interviews with 42 couples (n = 42, 2021 and 2022) and analyzed how fathers’ and couples’ motivations for sharing parental leave (PL) and childcare allowance (CA) in Austria shape fatherhood practices. All interviewees had claimed CA for a minimum duration of five months. Since infant care has only recently been incorporated into normative constructions of masculinity, our praxeological analysis centers on fathers. By applying the theoretical concept of hybrid masculinities, we examine these practices which are still perceived as “new”. In the couple interviews we conducted, we analyzed the reports and views of both parents, which tended to be more fully expressed when the parents interviewed were in conversation with each other. We applied topic-specific content analysis and Informed Grounded Theory to analyze the empirical data, guided by semi-structured interview protocols and coded with MAXQDA. Our findings indicate that fathers successfully take on and embody caregiving responsibilities. However, they also continue to conform to traditional constructions of masculinity, particularly in their long-term reconciliation of childcare and employment. Considering international PL and CA policies, we discuss the relationship between parents’ dual PL uptake and social sustainability in the transformation of gendered parenting norms and the reduction in gender inequalities.

1. Introduction

For over two decades, Austria and further member states of the European Union have implemented new family policy regulations, following the goal of increasing women’s labor market participation and men’s shares in claiming childcare allowance (CA) and parental leave (PL). In 2019, the European Parliament and the European Council adopted a directive on work–life balance (WLB) for parents and carers (European Parliament and European Council 2019, WLB-Directive, EU 2019/1158), which strengthens the importance of second-parent leave by introducing a non-transferable PL quota for fathers and/or the second parent (Bártová et al. 2024). Austria has implemented this regulation. Consequently, increasing the proportion of men in private childcare negotiations is an important goal of Austrian family policy, which aims to increase the proportion of women in (full-time) employment. In Austria, 71.3 percent of female employees aged 15 to 64 with children under 15 work part-time, compared to only 8 percent of male employees in this age group (Statistics Austria 2023a). As the reconciliation of male full-time employment and female part-time employment has a long tradition among Austrian couples and is high among European countries (Riederer and Berghammer 2019; see also Statistics Austria 2023d), there is a strong demand for countervailing forces to reduce gender-specific inequalities in work and family. In this regard, increasing the PL and CA rates of men is of outmost importance to promote gender equity in parenthood and the labor market.

CA has been available for all parents in Austria since 2002. The maximum duration is 35 months if two parents claim CA (see

Table 1. Parental leave and childcare allowance for both parents in Austria.

Maternity leave 16 weeks (since 1957/modified 1979), 8 weeks before and 8 weeks after birth, 100% income replacement (no upper limit), including health insurance	“Family time bonus” (previously “daddy month”, 1 month) (introduced 03/2017, for employees), since 2024 around EUR 1626.26 per month, including health insurance
Parental leave 24 months—family entitlement (taken by one parent or by two parents on an alternating basis)
Childcare allowance (CA) since 2002, moderate income; since 2017, “childcare allowance account”—flatrate and income-related variant
Income-based childcare allowance (since 2010) 80% of the previous income, up to a maximum of EUR 2300 per month. max. 12 month/one parent income-based, max. 14 months/both parents, 2 months non-transferable, replacement, additional earnings may not exceed EUR 8100 a year.	Flat-rate childcare allowance account, differing in length (flexible, days)—overall sum of EUR 14.355 € for one parent or EUR 17.933 € for two parents over a chosen time span; one parent: around EUR 1200 per month in the shortest form (12 months), around EUR 515 in the longest form; two parents: around EUR 547 per parent/month (on an alternating basis), additional income limit EUR 18,000 per year.
All PL and CA variants, additional opportunities: partnership bonus EUR 1000 (EUR 500 per parent)

Source: Included data retrieved from (Schmidt et al. 2024a, pp. 73–78).

). In contrast, PL is restricted to working parents. Furthermore, the maximum duration of CA in Austria exceeds the maximum duration of PL, which is 24 months. Labor market experts have criticized this difference in duration as an inhibiting factor in promoting the retention of women in the workforce (Riesenfelder and Danzer 2024). Encouraging more men to take up PL and CA is therefore seen as an important tool to reduce gender inequalities in the labor market, which are largely caused by parenthood (Eurostat 2024, p. 116; see also Statistics Austria 2023c). So far, however, the proportion of men claiming PL and CA in Austria has not increased significantly since the introduction of PL and CA for all parents.

Furthermore, research on gender, work and employment has identified gender-specific structures in the labor market as obstacles to achieving gender equality (Acker 2012). In addition, gender and family research has examined the overall strong identification of men with income growth and, in parallel, the changing employment conditions in a global, neoliberal labor market (Lengersdorf and Meuser 2016; Meuser 2012; Koppetsch and Speck 2015; Scholz 2009; Kugelberg 2006).

As part of the investigation of fatherhood practices, in this article we examine the utilization of PL and CA by men in Austria from the perspective of hybrid masculinities. We examine the development of fatherhood practices in a group of parents that represents a small group within the Austrian population, as only 2 percent of fathers claim CA for 3 to 6 months and only 1 percent for 6 months or longer (Riesenfelder and Danzer 2024). We use couple interviews to explore how parents who both claimed CA (see Supplementary Materials) share parenting tasks and responsibilities. As fathers traditionally are not as involved in infant care as mothers, we specifically ask how fathers develop caring practices and parental responsibilities based on receiving CA. Exploring men’s fatherhood and childcare practices and their development of parenting skills and competences is an important step towards exploring the potential of both parents in balancing work and childcare and reducing gender inequalities (Ciccia and Verloo 2012).

Although men’s uptake of CA and PL does not reflect men’s overall participation in childcare, their share indicates progress in overcoming gendered attitudes in parenting and opportunities for greater success in achieving gender equity. More recently, the reconciliation of work and childcare by men has been recognized as a factor in social sustainability, as parents who share PL and CA have a pioneering role for their peers as well as for future generations (EIGE 2024). This future result of the change in gender-specific norms in parenthood and the reduction in gender-specific inequalities in the reconciliation of work and private life is also referred to as intergenerational distributive justice or intergenerational equity (Littig 2018, p. 571f).

2. The Austrian Context: Parental Leave and Childcare Allowance for Both Parents

In Austria, PL entitlements are regulated in social security legislation and might be claimed by employed parents, regardless of gender. CA entitlements are regulated in family legislation. Since 2002, all parents of biological, foster or adopted children are entitled to claim CA, regardless of gender. In 2010 and 2017, the Austrian CA model was supplemented by the introduction of an income-dependent variant and a partnership bonus (see Table 1). The aim of the changes was to improve the opportunities for both parents to combine employment and childcare.

Despite access to equal sharing, 91 percent of the principal recipients of the flat-rate childcare benefit in Austria were mothers (Schmidt et al. 2024a, p. 83). In all CA variants fathers claimed CA in 16 percent of all cases (Rille-Pfeiffer and Kapella 2022) and about 4.5 percent of all days taken off for childcare in Austria (Austrian Court of Audit 2020; Statistics Austria 2023b). Regionally, the proportion of male CA recipients is higher in Austrian cities and the metropolis Vienna, especially in the income-dependent form (see Supplementary Materials).

3. Parental Leave, Childcare Allowance, Work Life Balance and Social Sustainability

We explore the potential of shared PL and CA for changing concepts of parenthood, motherhood and fatherhood and for realizing social sustainability in the renewal of WLB concepts. International research on parental leave and masculinities shows that fathers need to be specifically encouraged to recognize and develop caring skills (Magaraggia et al. 2019). Currently, this encouragement is often provided by female partners in the private sphere. Moreover, “women’s strong position in the labor market can also tip the scales in favor of more equal sharing of PL” (Beglaubter 2017, p. 492). In parallel to income and employment conditions, strong norms regarding motherhood practices also have an impact on parents’ PL and CA decisions (Décieux et al. 2024; Schmidt et al. 2015; Schmidt 2018; Schmidt et al. 2024b; Mauerer and Schmidt 2019). So far, the introduction of non-transferable PL quotas in the European context has been thwarted by cultural and economic pressure (Beglaubter 2017, p. 477; Brannen et al. 2023). As a result, men have not utilized gender-neutral leave arrangements to the extent that would have been possible or expected with a change in family policies. It is therefore important to take a closer look at the parenting practices and negotiations of partners who have utilized both family and social benefits. In their microlevel negotiations, parents who widely share PL and CA are “confronting widely spread hegemonic cultural assumptions about the primacy of women’s care giving and the mother-infant bond” (Beglaubter 2017, p. 478). Furthermore, family researchers have highlighted the emotional labor and mental strain involved in parents’ negotiations over childcare (Twamley 2019). To date, these rather invisible parental responsibilities are implicitly shared rather than explicitly negotiated, and emotional labor is still largely performed and distributed according to gendered attributions and expectations (Wiesmann et al. 2008). In this context, gender researchers have also investigated the different perceptions of biological mothers, lesbian co-mothers and stepmothers regarding the ontologization of the mother figure (Di Battista 2023). Although there is a wide range of family forms (including rainbow families, families with children conceived through artificial insemination, adoptive and foster families), the assumption that a biological mother in particular should be selfless and invest enormous energy, time and resources in her children is still relevant (Di Battista 2023, p. 8).

Aware of these cultural and ontological differentiations, family and gender studies have focused on examining men’s reconciliation of employment, men’s childcare activities and the development of father–child bonds (Cannito 2020a; Mauerer 2023; Ruspini and Crespi 2016; Musumeci and Santero 2018; Bünning 2015; Johansson 2011). In (inter-)national family policy recommendations, shared PL and CA are seen as essential foundations for the realization of these new fatherhood concepts. International experts on PL and social sustainability have emphasized that non-transferable PL shares for fathers or the second parent are important tools to promote the uptake of PL by men or the second parent (Dobrotić and Arnalds 2023; Dobrotić et al. 2024; O’Brien and Uzunalioglu 2022). In Northern European countries, the introduction of the ‘use it or lose it’ principle in PL entitlements has contributed to an increase in PL entitlements for men, particularly in Sweden, Iceland and Norway (Dörfler 2019; Suwada 2017; Rostgaard and Ejrnæs 2021). As an example in Southern Europe, in 2021, Spain introduced gender equality in PL entitlements, which led to a significant increase in men’s uptake (Meil et al. 2024, p. 499; see Fernández-Cornejo et al. 2024; Castrén et al. 2021; Moreno-Mínguez and Crespi 2017; Meil et al. 2022; Escobedo and Moss 2025). However, in several nations, there are social restrictions on the use of paid PL and CA for all parents, as paid PL is restricted to working parents (Van Gasse et al. 2023; Marynissen et al. 2021; Blum and Dobrotić 2020; Finch 2021; Doucet 2021; McKay et al. 2016), or parents cannot afford to take or share longer PL and CA due to their low income. The latter is reported for Portugal, for example (Leitão et al. 2023, p. 418f; Cunha and Atalaia 2019). However, even in gender-specific progressive countries, men on average still tend to take the minimum duration of the non-transferable PL shares (Bungum and Kvande 2024; Duvander et al. 2019) and make less use of additional WLB offers—such as extended time off, unpaid leave or reduced working hours after their PL (Fernández-Cornejo et al. 2024, p. 16).

Overall, parenting arrangements during an infant’s first year are seen as decisive for developing father–child bonds (Beglaubter 2017, p. 490; Norman et al. 2014; O’Brien and Wall 2017). This also applies to mother–child bonding. However, as biological mothers usually form their first bonds during pregnancy and after birth, mother–child bonding is taken for granted in line with gender-specific expectations (Di Battista 2023) and a lack of mother–child bonding is usually labeled as a mental disorder or illness (Zehetner 2012). This assumption by society is also a cause of maternal stress and psychological strain. To overcome gendered views of parenting, the involvement of both parents in childcare is seen as a positive factor in improving the well-being of parents and children (Hobbs 2024; Moss et al. 2019; O’Brien 2009). These positive influences on the health and well-being of parents and children have also gained increasing attention as socially sustainable WLB practices. Furthermore, scholars in PL research point to the importance of paternal practices in infant care to prevent fathers from remaining in the position of their partner’s helper (Fernández-Cornejo et al. 2024, p. 16).

Additionally, the uptake of PL and CA by men contributes to changing the attitudes of employers who are guided by gender-specific expectations regarding the (potential) uptake of PL by women and men (Mauerer and Schmidt 2019; Mauerer 2018). In this respect, increasing PL uptake by men supports social sustainability in terms of valuing employees as equally loyal, regardless of gender (EIGE 2024; Littig 2018; Martínez and MacKenzie 2017; Mauerer 2016). Moreover, research in critical masculinities points to a decrease in domestic violence due to men’s involvement in childcare and family responsibilities (Holter and Borchgrevink 2017; Holter 2014).

4. Examining Fatherhood Practices Through the Lens of Hybrid Masculinities

The concept of hybrid masculinities describes a form of male identity that has transformed hegemonic masculinities and goes beyond a patriarchal formation of fatherhood. It includes characteristics that were previously marked as feminine, such as practicing infant care. In the context of fatherhood, this means that men who take up PL and CA increasingly are more involved in infant care than previous generations of fathers, who were primarily seen as income providers. However, this new concept of fatherhood does not necessarily include a continuous bearing of parenting responsibilities and practice of infant care, as it can also be restricted to a father’s “shift” as the recipient of CA (also Cannito 2020a; Halrynjo and Kitterød 2025). This hybrid type of fatherhood corresponds with the findings of PL research, which has shown that gainful employment has remained a central component of male identity and that taking on caring work is often seen as a temporary adjustment that does not translate permanently into long-term family structures with equal participation of both parents in (unpaid) childcare (Suwada 2021; Halrynjo and Kitterød 2025). Furthermore, fathers who conform to “old” and “new” concepts of fatherhood are considered “transitionals” (Tanquerel and Grau-Grau 2020, p. 4; Cannito 2020a), and their new role in infant and childcare is not necessarily part of a “new” masculine identity but can also be seen as a state of exception (Mauerer 2016).

“(T)he approach of hybrid masculinity (Demetriou 2001; Bridges and Pascoe 2014, 2018) describes how hegemonic masculinity is perpetuated while gender relations are simultaneously changing” (Pangritz 2023, p. 137; translation authors). This perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005) includes hierarchizations and standardizations of masculinities, hierarchies among men in the struggle to define the right masculinity and a normative connection between masculinity and gainful employment. The associated “patriarchal dividend” in a hegemonial system (Connell 2006, p. 100) also includes the repression of ascribed femininity and its displacement into the devalued private sphere and reproduction (Funder 2016; Wetterer 2003). The discursive formation of this exceptional category corresponds with the fact that emotional and cognitive skills and competencies that individual fathers have developed in childcare have not yet been formative for a changed concept of a masculine habitus (Bourdieu 2005).

“As relations of power, production, emotions, and symbols change”, the concept of hybrid masculinities encompasses these changes that “reverberate throughout the gender order. (….) Hybrid masculinities illustrate a great deal of change among symbolic and emotional relations—transformations that obscure the fact that power relations have been less challenged than it initially seems” (Bridges and Pascoe 2018, p. 258).

In a dichotomous gender order, these power relations are correlated to the ontological imaginations of a selfless mother (Di Battista 2023, and

Table 2. Fatherhood typology based on the analyzed couple interviews.

Type of Fatherhood	Motivation	Goals, Orientation	Fatherhood practices
father	father/couple	father/couple
Type I. Fatherhood as an obligation, highly committed fatherhood	Both parents involved “right from the start”, clarity in the division of tasks, explicit negotiations and scheduling, including long-term perspectives	Couple orientation, Both parents have gender–political interests that go beyond infant care and reconciling employment and childcare	Caring attitudes, high level of explicit negotiations going beyond gender norms
Type II. Fatherhood led by pragmatic reasons, starting a family as a joint social and financial project (upbringing, financing)	Joint organization of family time, paternal parental leave/part-time work as an (interim) step in career planning	Family orientationfocusing on father–child bonding, sharing responsibilities in the transition to parenthood	Hybrid construction, dual reconciliation/explicit and implicit negotiations in parenting, partly correlated to gender norms and expectations
Type III. Fatherhood focused on parents’ equal opportunities in gaining income	Supporting the female partners’ employment and reconciliation of employment and childcare, paternal substitute position in infant care	Orientation towards the individual, neglecting a “patriarchal dividend” (Connell 2006), tendency to perpetuate gender inequalities in unpaid childcare	Hegemonic tendencies, high income priority, unpaid childcare as unsolved question, mothers are in weak position due to the ontologization of a selfless mother (Di Battista 2023)

), who is traditionally viewed as stepping back (in the public sphere or in employment) due to emotional bonds to the infant. Subsequently, she is not seen as a partner or combatant in serious (power) games among men. In this hybrid process, however, “serious games” (Bourdieu 1997, p. 210) about masculinities, which concern everyday measurement between men, combined with the pursuit of belonging and recognition among men, remain relatively untouched. These “serious games” among men are rarely present in the private sphere. Overall, the paternal assumption of caring activities in heterosexual couples means a conceptual overcoming of the subordination of women originally laid down in the concept of hegemonic masculinity, at the couple level and in the public sphere.

To date, there have been no practical role models for the practice of fatherhood while receiving CA. Family researchers describe a higher child-orientation as a motivation for fathers to actively participate in parental tasks (Alsarve 2021, p. 85; Bünning 2015, p. 746). Furthermore, scholars differentiate between paternal parental leave that is family-orientated, gender equality-orientated and work-orientated (Smeby 2017; Brandth and Kvande 2019, p. 215). Schmidt et al. (2015) state that Austrian couples’ PL decisions—whether sharing PL and CA or not—follow hegemonic constructions of masculinities. In that respect, fathers’ free will and mothers’ obligation to take PL and CA are the base for shared decision-making.

As in many nations it is still not possible to share paid parental leave in a comparable form, to date there are few empirical results on the behavioral practices of fathers and parents who have each claimed PL and CA for at least five months. However, there are studies on parenting negotiations before and after the birth of a child (Schmidt et al. 2015), comparing PL uptake of different length (Beglaubter 2017), men’s PL uptake for a shorter period (Fernández-Cornejo et al. 2024), men’s development of caring attitudes (Doucet 2018; Tronto 2013) and parents’ shares in household labor (Doucet and Klostermann 2024; Prattes 2020).

Our research examines, in a praxeological approach, how the different motivations and decision-making bases of the fathers and couples surveyed manifest themselves on a practical level.

5. Data and Methods: Couple Interviews, Praxeological Analysis

In our research, we conducted 42 couple interviews with parents in Austria between May 2021 and May 2022. We methodically chose couple interviews, as they allowed us to see how both partners report on and deal with everyday practices, including the partners’ views as well as practices in situ, which were, for example, occurring dialogs between both parents while dealing with an infant during the interview (Beglaubter 2017). We conducted part of the interviews in personal meetings with parents in their homes or outdoors (n = 20), and partly in online meetings via the ZOOM platform (n = 22). Also in virtual meetings, we were able to observe how parents negotiated childcare immediately, e.g., when a child woke up earlier than expected or did not fall asleep as usual. On several occasions, the parents supplemented each other’s statements and memories regarding days on parental leave (see Results, “vegetable strudel”). The couple interview shows an “inner event of the couple and the dynamics of this social relationship” (Wimbauer and Motakef 2022, p. 902).

We opted for couple interviews in our research because they make it possible to capture a variety of relationship aspects: interactions, negotiations and inequalities in the couple as well as couple performances and (self-)representations of the couple and as a couple (Wimbauer and Motakef 2017). The couple interviews provide an insight into the observable concrete couple practice and the representation of the practice in the interview. With the relational view of individuals in couple relationships, it is also possible to analyze the processuality and dynamics of the social. This also makes it possible to analyze the interplay of individual action, social relationships and social structural principles. Moreover, we gained insight into how much parents reported on their parenting experiences and discussed parenting topics in a family’s everyday life with the partner. Some of the fathers interviewed had difficulties recalling daily routines. Being in dialog with the female partner during the interview, they received support and verbal reminders from the partner.

As a minor disadvantage, we identified a tendency towards social desirability in the response behavior of the couples surveyed. This tendency can be observed in social and gender research in general, as parents who both claim PL and CA for 5 months or longer are a very specific group in Austria (1–2% of all recipients of CA, see Riesenfelder and Danzer 2024) and are interested in advancing progress in gender justice and gender equity.

By contrast, in our follow-up investigation and second empirical wave with individual interviews (work in progress), some female interviewees mentioned having thought about divorce or separation from the partner during a challenging period in their relationship. Moreover, 3 out of 42 couples were separated two years later, and one couple was separated before the first empirical wave took place; however, both parents participated in the interview.

The parents’ response behavior confirmed that “praxeology means taking the practical, everyday knowledge of the actors seriously as such, i.e., methodically breaking down the quasi-doxical hierarchization of everyday knowledge on the one hand and scientific or expert knowledge on the other, which is common in modern societies. One of the powerful classifications in modern societies is that rationality, reflexivity, conscious recognition and understanding of the interrelationships of the social world are regarded as the privilege of scientific knowledge production and as superior knowledge, while everyday knowledge, which is based on practical experience, is held in low esteem, devalued and reflexivity is generally denied” (Dölling 2011, p. 172, translated by the authors).

In that respect, the couple interviews clearly revealed a gendered impact in terms of evaluating daily life experiences, as most of the mothers could more quickly, seemingly more easily and in more detail recall how they had spent a day on parental leave with their child or children. In our analysis, we hypothesized that this apparent gender gap in recalling a PL day during the couple interview could be influenced by the fact that the fathers interviewed more often had not planned their PL day themselves but had at least initially followed the structure or advice of their partners when planning a PL day. However, all fathers and mothers interviewed also had to cope with new and unfamiliar situations, depending on the age and developmental stage of the infants, and developing corresponding behavioral practices. Parent dialogs took place when new situations were discussed that presented the parents with new challenges, both during the couple interview and during the reported PL periods, and when there was no prior knowledge of how to cope with everyday activities. These included, for example, first steps in infant feeding by the father in the absence of the female partner.

A semi-structured interview guide was chosen for the survey (Witzel 2000). The data analysis was based on Informed Grounded Theory (Thornberg 2012; with reference to Glaser and Strauss 1998; Glaser 1978) and on the topic-specific content analysis according to Braun and Clarke (2021). This approach considers the fact that the researchers’ prior knowledge comes into play in the creation of the semi-structured guidelines and influences the data coding and analysis (Thornberg 2012). The data were coded with MAXQDA. A pre-structuring of the topic-specific analysis resulted from the questions of the semi-structured guide. Prior knowledge from previous research (authors) was incorporated into the guideline and coding.

The interview guideline focused on parental decision-making regarding sharing the uptake of CA and PL, childcare practices and parents’ agreements with employers, including working hours in employment, the duration of the uptake of childcare benefits and/or of (un-)paid PL, as well as parents’ negotiations with each other, not least regarding work at home during the pandemic.

Regarding the sample, an above-average proportion of interviewees—compared to the overall Austrian population—had an academic education (Aunkofer et al. 2019; Peukert 2015; Wimbauer and Motakef 2017; Brumley 2018; Mauerer 2018). The couples surveyed received EUR 40 as an incentive for participating. This meant that low-income couples could also be recruited. Nevertheless, a higher proportion of the interviewees had an average middle-class income and were white collar workers (Brumley 2018; Cannito 2020b). In the presented sample, a relatively large group of parents worked part-time in the transition to parenthood, and most children had not started attending school (see Supplementary Materials). This fact also positively affects the dual reconciliation of employment and childcare. Most of the interviewees opted for the income-related CA form. They partly bridged the period after 14 months of CA claims for two parents with unpaid leave, part-time work, educational leave and being unemployed (see Supplementary Materials). Some of the parents surveyed reported low earned incomes at the time of the survey but referred to material resources such as favorable rents from flats owned by family members, land ownership or opportunities to renovate inherited houses or to have obtained cheaper, older rental contracts from relatives or in cooperatives. These resources provided some respondents with temporary or longer-term independence from two incomes in full-time employment.

The names of the interviewees, their children and jobs were anonymized and pseudonymized, following ethical standards specified by the research institution’s ethical commission.

6. Results: Types of Fatherhood in the Early Transition to Parenthood

Based on the empirical material generated during our interviews, we have identified three types of fatherhood. The motivations of the fathers and the objectives of the couples are of particular importance. In the following sections, we focus on activities that were particularly challenging for the fathers surveyed. These included providing food for an infant, as well as emotional and cognitive tasks in caring for an infant and looking after several infants at the same time. Fathers who had taken over care work “from the beginning” had an advantage in carrying out these tasks.

6.1. Type I, Moving “Right from the Start” Towards Gender Equity in Parenting

In type I, the development of paternal competences as the sole caregiver in everyday life with an infant from birth is a clearly pursued task and objective of these couples, which is oriented towards the realization of gender equity. Some fathers in type I adopted the strategies and knowledge from their partners during their PL and built their own practices based on these: we labeled this fatherhood as oriented towards maternalism (Hochschild 2003; Doucet 2018).

The couple interviews show that the fathers’ skills in early infant care and feeding were often developed jointly by both parents “right from the start”. Couple C, Anna and Markus, both working as lawyers in Vienna, developed their parenting practices in close partnership. Anna consulted a midwife before Markus took over the care of their daughter at the age of eight months. Consequently, Markus described himself as a beneficiary of the eating routines developed by Anna with daughter Nana.

Markus:

“I took the first two weeks of February off, and you (=Anna) took the third week of February off. So, luckily, we overlapped. (…) Working at home was a real blessing because I could see what was happening (…), I could come down at any time (…). At lunch I was really…well, you did a great job, I was just the beneficiary of the fact that you practiced like that, and I was able to continue with the practices that you had started.” (Couple C, Anna and Markus, one daughter)

Markus’ experience of fatherhood was facilitated by the fact that he had “experienced everything from the very beginning”, as Eva also emphasized. When Nana was seven months old, Anna sought advice at the midwifery center in Vienna:

Anna:

“So I went there in mid-January, said: (…) What shall I do? (…) Does a child have to eat vegetables? (laughs) (…) They (…) said: (…) then we’ll make a new plan: bread crusts, you can put butter on it and it’s a ready meal. Fits. Natural yoghurt, crumble in a bit of millet, ready meal’”.

Markus:

“So, these are our to-go meals, because we know she eats it, she can handle it, she’ll be full.” (Couple C, Anna and Markus, one daughter.)

In the case of couple C, Markus acted as an equal, caring parent from Nana’s birth onwards, as she was born by an emergency cesarean section and Anna also needed care after giving birth. External help also came from the couple’s circle of friends. Markus cited his mother as a role model for his active fatherhood.

Another representative of type I is David. His stories focus on the development of emotional and cognitive paternal skills. During the night shifts of his partner, a doctor at a hospital in Vienna, he looked after the two toddlers from the age of nine months. Looking after both children at the same time and coping with everyday routines was particularly challenging for him.

David:

“The evening routine is also exhausting, but not so bad, because at least I don’t have any time pressure. (…) What is stressful for me alone, for example, is the topic of food, what do we want to eat, because I have always (…) made the same thing once a week. (…) Now I (…) want to cook something different and then it’s just difficult to agree. Then, it’s also stressful when I’m alone with them and they can’t agree on what they want to do (…). If one of them says I’m going to do a jigsaw puzzle and the other one paints, then I lie down on the couch and that’s OK, then I’ve already won.” (Couple O2, David and Elisabeth, 1 son, 1 daughter)

The cognitive challenge of designing a meal plan as a father was discussed in some interviews. Playing and paternal interaction with more than one child also proved to be the key discipline in coping with everyday practices in type I. It also was “clear from the start” for David and Elisabeth that they would split the CA uptake. David was working for an insurance company at the time of receiving the CA and then switched to the logistics sector.

The case of couple F, Sandra and Christoph, was special, insofar as Christoph chose the first shift on PL and cared for their first foster son since he was five months old. They negotiated this parenting plan, as Sandra’s colleague was on maternity leave when they became foster parents.

Christoph:

“I was a total clinger, I always said: ‘The milk is coming in’, and it felt like the milk was coming in. I just didn’t want to let go of the child, that’s how it was. We had a lovely time together. I then started a cultural project where I took Sebastian, who was like the little Buddha, with me and he sat on my lap with the provincial councillor and the city councillor, so we went to political appointments with Sebastian. That was nice, but I wouldn’t really have been able to let go if Sandra hadn’t said: ‘Now please go!’”

In fatherhood type I, the inclusion of emotional labor and a father’s ability to comfort a child during the day or in the evening was a matter of course. Altogether, the interviewees in type I underlined both partners’ high interest in continuously remaining in employment and negotiated CA claims mainly in the income related model, sharing 7 and 7 months, 8 and 6 months or 9 and 5 months (see Supplementary Materials). As parents also referred to periods of lockdown, many respondents stated that the pandemic had a positive impact on their alternating use of PL and CA, as breastfeeding—where possible and/or practiced—was easier to organize during his or her work at home. Furthermore, parents mentioned that their communication was easier, as there was no or a low demand in time for commuting.

6.2. Type II. Pragmatic Approach, Focusing on Father-Child Bonding and Starting a Family as a Joint Project

In type II, men’s uptake of PL and CA was mainly seen as a joint organization of family time, and PL and part-time work often were an (interim) step in career planning. In terms of fatherhood practices, hybrid masculinities are also partly realized using PL, parental part-time work and education leave for career planning. However, this was also to the case with female interviewees (i.e., couple E, A2, B2, G2 and K2, see Supplementary Materials).

In type II, the paternal relationship with an infant and starting a family as a joint social and financial project are named as the main motive. The promotion of the child’s well-being through developed father–child bonds is part of this social project. Type II includes men whose decisions regarding the allocation of CA are primarily based on pragmatic reasons in the transition to parenthood. This stage often runs parallel to starting or expanding a household and is not necessarily or primarily orientated towards gender equity.

In some cases, reports on (grand)parental support showed gender-specific facets of a ‘normal day’ for the father as the sole carer of the PL. This support sometimes included the provision of food for fathers and children.

Joachim:

“Then, maybe we went to grandma’s place (which is close to their house, authors) for lunch once, and if not, then I had what she cooked for me, because I can’t cook, ah yes, I cooked a bit too, not much. (…)”

Annemarie:

“Vegetable strudel was the classic.”

Joachim:

“Yes, vegetable strudel. Well, then I think it was already time for the 2nd ‘Budele’ (the second bottle for the infant), the second challenge. And you’re not allowed to warm up the milk that often, so that’s also, that’s all the tension. The milk, right? You only have one try. If she doesn’t take it, then, yes.” (Couple I, Joachim and Annemarie, 2 children at the point of this interview, Vorarlberg)

Annemarie added “vegetable strudel” as Joachim’s classic when cooking, thus enhancing his statement “I cooked a bit, not much”. As fathers on parental leave—and in the social environment of the couples—have a pioneering role or role model function, the father’s contributions to family life are not only valued, but also favorably supported by the partners. This benevolent support also concerned the reconstruction of fathers’ days on parental leave and highlighting “classics” in the (family) narrative and reconstruction of a fathers’ day on PL in situ.

Regarding branch-specific differences, our analysis showed that fathers who worked in segments associated with low incomes and low educational backgrounds were especially—at least initially—confronted with pressure to fulfill traditional male expectations and norms of masculinities in employment, such as being present, working hard and having a female partner who cares for the infants and takes over all responsibility for family care (i.e., couple M, couple X). These expectations were balanced in the private sphere, going beyond gendered assumptions. Referring to a female partner’s equal or higher income made it easier to convince employers and evoke colleagues understanding. However, empirical results show that men who use parental rights and claim PL and CA “without asking” tend not to experience negative consequences.

Murat, a father of two children, had applied for PL twice and taken part-time parental leave. He works in a surveying department on construction sites and is a second-generation migrant. During his PL and part-time employment, he attended advanced training on Friday evenings and Saturdays. He concealed his participation in the training from his employer and his colleagues, as he was thinking about changing jobs in the future and improving his professional position. His partner supported his career plan and cared for the infants during his advanced training.

He told us that when colleagues complained about him leaving work earlier than them, he jokingly replied that he would recommend that they switch to part-time work:

Murat:

“You can take a job where you work less, but you’ll earn less. It’s not as if I leave early and then earn just as much as you, and then I earn almost half as much. You must keep that in mind. And that’s work for me too, I go home, then the work goes on until 9.00 pm in the evening, until the children have gone to sleep. That’s no walk in the park. And then they (the male colleagues) are quiet anyway, then they don’t say anything.” (Couple M, Murat and Mechthild, one son, one daughter).

In type II, both parents used legal regulations such as parental part-time work or educational leave for improving or stabilizing their professional career. Their negotiations point to the importance of legal regulation for parents, especially in male-dominated professions that traditionally show PL uptake rates lower than, for example, in the health sector, social work or education (see Supplementary Materials).

6.3. Type III, Focus on Supporting the Female Partner’s Income Gain and Social Security

In fatherhood type III, the focus was on enabling the partner to work. Eugen and Marlies (couple A2) emphasized income security through mutual financial security in dual-income households. Marlies described Eugen as a helper who makes it possible for her to work.

Eugen:

“Yes, so it was always important to me that both parents stay at work, so to speak, if one of them is not doing so well financially, that the other can step in, that you are flexible in the long term, over decades, so to speak.” (couple A2, Eugen and Marlies, 1 child)

With the aim of overcoming traditional gender dichotomous norms in taking on paid work and childcare, women were confronted with gender-specific expectations in the workplace; on the other hand, they partly reproduced gender-specific assumptions, for example, by being grateful for men’s support with childcare and for their willingness to apply for PL and CA.

Marlies:

“I have to say that was also a relief for me when I worked at home. (…) Eugen often picked her up and went out with her. So that helped me to really concentrate on my work from autumn onwards, yes.” (Couple A2, Eugen and Marlies, one daughter)

Marlies and Eugen perceived their parenting negotiations and Marlies’ continuation in gainful employment after the birth of a child as special and one-sidedly as help for mothers. In this view, the perception of the paternal role remained tied to voluntariness and to an—individually portrayed—goodwill on the part of fathers, which was not always seen as an obligation, neither by male nor by female interviewees. At the same time, the described parental practices and division of labor showed men’s ability to care for infants.

In type III, the implementation of paternal practices is strongly subordinated to (full-time) gainful employment and both parents’ income generation. This often results in a balancing act in childcare, which is easier to manage when working part-time. However, regarding the ability to be a competent parent, we have also observed sustainable facets in type III that result from the utilization of CA by men, because fathers could easily take on caring tasks based on the skills and competences acquired during the period of CA receipt if this proved necessary in their view. For example, Dieter was responsible when Tina was away on business for two days. In addition, Dieter’s position as a fully responsible parent was able to flourish in times of need during the COVID-19 pandemic, because during the first severe lockdown, parents’ working conditions were different.

Dieter:

“I was on short time work with ten hours, yes, although first, they said I should do 50:50 or something. And Tina (…) was working more than before.”

Tina:

“Our two companies had quite different approaches. You had special care time, and I didn’t. I was told that I could work fewer hours, (…) I just don’t get paid for them. (…)

Tina:

“We even had a few corona projects (…). A lot was done in IT during this time (…). I worked more during this time and then increased my hours during the coronavirus period (laughs), working from home.” (Couple T, Dieter and Tina, one daughter, one son)

This situation of sharing childcare and employment during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which our interviews took place, showed a tendency for men to be more willing to participate in childcare if their employment and income remained, on average, stable and their partners were urgently needed at work. Family researchers in Austria and the USA have uncovered trends that point to increased male participation in childcare during the pandemic in industries that have introduced short-time work (Schieman et al. 2021; Berghammer and Riederer 2024). For female interviewees, this demand in the workplace was also a decisive factor in favor of working more hours when paternal childcare was provided.

Furthermore, it appeared to be easier or more “manly” for men to work fewer hours and increase their share of childcare for macroeconomic reasons (e.g., production deficits in certain industries) or for external reasons (e.g., the pandemic) than exclusively due to private negotiations with their partner. In that respect, external reasons supported the adaptation to hybrid masculinities in couples, among which men previously followed rather hegemonical masculinities for (not fully) sharing unpaid childcare.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

In our investigation, we explored men’s practices in infant care. We identified different types regarding fathers’ motivations and couples’ orientations. Some couples shared experiences and practices of parenting and infant care since the birth of the child. Regarding the first challenging period in the transition to parenthood, gender researchers have pointed to men’s important role in this early stage of infancy, transcending gender boundaries by applying “caring hands” (Magaraggia 2013). However, regarding fatherhood and gender equity, researchers have highlighted that “child-oriented father and equal partner are not necessarily the same” (Alsarve 2021, p. 85) and parents’ “division of work and care are embedded in other social relationships” (ibid, p. 95). Moreover, results on both parents’ PL uptake in gender-specific progressive countries such as Sweden show that “women still take more PL than men” (Alsarve 2021, p. 95). Couples who share PL and CA must deal with constant implicit and explicit negotiations about daily infant care (Twamley 2019, 2024; Wiesmann et al. 2008).

Our results show that parents in identified fatherhood type I show a high level of explicit negotiations, for example, in “blocking” days for the partner during his or her shift on PL. In addition, the type I couples interviewed mentioned role models in the family and support from peers and within the wider family. We also observed a higher probability of fatherhood type I in couples in which the woman was some years older than the man (Couple C, Couple F and Couple F2, see Supplementary Materials) and in the metropolis of Vienna. In contrast, we found a higher tendency towards gender-stereotypical age constellations and couples with a slightly older male partner in the federal states and in rural areas.

In general, higher or more stable female income supported the reversal of the traditional gender order in parents’ negotiations and couples’ move toward realizing gender equity. In these rarer forms, we also found a high level of explicit arrangements in parents’ dual childcare management and in scheduling both partners’ additional (work) interests (couple C). In general, couples—especially women who were partners of men in fatherhood type I—reported a tight schedule and a high degree of routine in planning a day on PL. These parents also reported that they were sometimes criticized for their strict scheduling; for example, because they insisted on regular bedtimes for infants.

In fatherhood type II, we observed a rather traditional social environment, which was partly characterized by male-dominated ideas of construction work, and the practical work of building a house was perceived—at least when breaking up the land and during the initial construction work—as an (unpaid or paid) male domain. In that respect, female respondents indicated that they had voluntarily or ‘unintentionally’ reverted to a traditional gender order by sharing the housework and childcare with their partner to a much lower extent, even though the partner had claimed CA. In connection with house building in rural areas, a higher tendency to “swim against the tide” (Schmidt et al. 2019) was found, which was expressed by some female respondents. However, as the parents interviewed had each individually claimed at least five months of PL, this intermediate situation was accepted by female partners due to realizing joint financial projects, regardless of this partial retraditionalization and gender-normative “step backwards”. However, all men who had used PL and CA were perceived as progressive in their peer group and in the family. This is in line with the findings of Mikula et al. (2012), who describe that men and women tend to see men’s activities in housework and their fatherhood practices in comparison to other men, rather than examining the couple level.

In fatherhood type III, men’s motives and goals pointed to rather traditional views regarding a dichotomous gender order, and the female partners—by necessity, rather than by choice—were more likely to bear unpaid workloads (Décieux et al. 2024; Schmidt et al. 2024b). Apparently, the supposedly selfless caring attitude contributed to the stabilization of hegemonic masculinities (Schmidt et al. 2015). This is also consistent with the fact that the women interviewed mentioned pension splitting as a strategy for equalizing the parents’ unequal income opportunities during their children’s infancy (Couple L, Couple T). None of the couples interviewed had implemented this plan at the time of the interview.

Our results confirm that fatherhood practices are often (still) not seen as an obligation, neither by all interviewees, nor by their peers and their wider family. This has also been observed by Alsarve regarding the Swedish context (Alsarve 2021, p. 85). In fatherhood type II and III, the negotiations between both parents were mainly conducted in relation to professional obligations and were less focused on the realization of gender equity beyond parenthood. However, in fatherhood type II and III, infant care remained female partners’ responsibility when the couple also realized further projects, like moving or building a house. Moreover, we identified commuting long distances to work as a (still) gendered topic. In fatherhood type III, some fathers’ employment required regular commuting and long-distance traveling. Their regular absence from the family, while not welcomed by both partners, remained nonetheless accepted. The interviewed fathers’ attitudes toward accepting long-distance commuting correlated with better income opportunities and a prioritization of employment requirements.

Although men who claim PL and CA for at least five months are perceived as being progressive and as performers of caring masculinities (Elliott 2016; Bohn et al. 2022), overall, men in fatherhood types II and III tended to conform to hybrid and hegemonic masculinities. Especially in the latter case, they were more focused on income gain than on continuous regular involvement in unpaid childcare. Correspondingly, their female partners were confronted with higher workloads in unpaid childcare, family management tasks and the accompanying emotional strains and mental load. However, if there was clear demand for “providing support” for the female partner and dealing with her workplace demands, fathers in type II and III were able to continue father–child bonding and parenting responsibilities based on their previous period of PL and CA claims (Norman et al. 2014; Alsarve 2021).

Although the opportunity for both parents to claim CA and PL in Austria was introduced at the beginning of this millennium, our findings reveal that both parents’ practices and responsibilities in daily childcare and family management are still perceived as a new division of parenting duties (Deutsch and Gaunt 2020; Magaraggia 2013; Cannito 2020a; O’Brien and Wall 2017; O’Brien and Twamley 2017). A substantial part of the interviewed couples combined PL and CA entitlements with (parental) part-time work, marginal employment, educational leave or short periods between jobs. This was especially the case for parents who had more than one child and thus aimed to bridge periods between two or more individual PL and CA claims.

To a wider extent, the interviewees’ progress in dually scheduling tasks was mainly led by planning time “blocks” and the allocation of specific task shares in parenting and employment. Going beyond these visible and measurable (time) shares, we found a smaller group of fathers who reported bearing mental loads and emotional strains in infant care. Fathers who had seemingly developed caring attitudes reported challenging parenting practices and reproductive work during a „normal day“ on PL. Our investigation revealed gender disparities, especially in mental load and emotional strains in parenting, which underscores the demand for further longitudinal research.

The parents reported responsibilities that had been invisible on the surface and not part of scheduling and task lists. These burdens were more present in the interviewed women’s reports and their replies regarding schedules on a “normal day” on PL (Doucet 2023; Doucet and Klostermann 2024). Overall, the interviewed fathers were more focused on productive workloads. Resulting from this focus on productivity even in reproductive work (Funder 2016), analyses regarding both parents’ shares in reconciling employment and childcare in a longitudinal praxeological approach might expand the impact of invisible “bits and pieces” of emotional and cognitive work in infant care. At present, their analyses hint to a perpetuation of gender inequalities in fatherhood practices, which are correlated with men’s higher tendency to conform to hybrid and hegemonic masculinities.

To go beyond this tendency, the implementation of PL policies that explicitly focus on gender equity in parenting while also providing a 100 percent income replacement, such as the Spanish case shows, might be a remarkable sign for, on the one hand, increasing men’s uptake of PL and CA, and, on the other hand, for supporting the development of fatherhood practices that more widely conform to caring masculinities, including further steps toward realizing gender equity in parenting. Although Austrian PL and CA policies offer a relatively long duration of PL and CA variants, moderate flat-rate or income-related PL and CA payments (with a ceiling of EUR 2400 per month since 2025), which is relatively high compared to further European Union member states, overall, parents’ shared uptake of PL and CA is still correlated with a focus on the nuclear family as a joint financial project. Therefore, the developed fatherhood practices do not necessarily conform to gender equity and diminishing gender inequalities in parenting. Subsequently, both partners’ realization of a sustainable work–life balance is not as much realized as dual-realization PL and CA claims might indicate. As this is also the case in other European member states, scholars point to a demand for more widely analyzing the family context in relation to international research on gender equity progress and the importance of women’s income for parents’ decisions-making on sharing PL and CA (Moreno-Mínguez et al. 2023; Suwada 2021; Reimer 2020).

Overall, the results point to a demand for fathers’ realization of PL and CA entitlements that go far beyond the minimum duration of the non-transferable PL quota for the second parent in Austria (see Supplementary Materials). In the presented sample, this was met by parents’ flexible use of work arrangements, an anxiety-free use of labor legislation for both parents and, in addition, support in the private sphere, which supported the realization of gender equity in parenthood without being able to fully bring it about (as fatherhood types II and III show). However, the empirical results show that all fatherhood practices developed through men’s use of CA and PL provide a sustainable basis for the development and strengthening of men’s (future) parenting responsibilities.