Trying Counts: Reconstructing Masculinity Under Constraint Among Low-Income Nonresident Fathers

Background and Purpose: “Be a man.” “Man up.” “I’ll take your man card away.” Such phrases reflect the precarious and contingent nature of masculinity. Rather than a status conferred at adulthood, masculinity must be continually performed and reaffirmed within shifting social, cultural, and economic contexts. Importantly, these expectations are not only interpersonal but are also shaped and reinforced by policy frameworks and public discourse that define what it means to be a “good” father and provider. In the contemporary neoliberal context, many men, particularly those facing economic precarity, are structurally constrained from achieving dominant ideals of masculinity tied to breadwinning and paternal presence. As a result, masculinity becomes an unattainable standard, although men remain attached to it. Masculinity is a cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011; Allan, 2018). This paper examines how low-income, nonresident fathers navigate and reinterpret these constraints, asking: How do men reconstruct masculinity when dominant scripts are structurally inaccessible?

Methods: This study draws on 23 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with low-income, nonresident fathers in the Southern United States, all of whom were participating in a fatherhood program. Interviews explored men’s understandings of fatherhood, provision, and masculine identity. Data were analyzed using an inductive, thematic approach to identify how participants make meaning of masculinity under conditions of constraint.

Results: Participants reconceptualized masculinity, not as the achievement of idealized outcomes, but as a process grounded in effort. They were trying. In this reframing, masculinity is not contingent on economic provision or traditional markers of success, but on ongoing commitment to one’s children and personal growth. By centering effort, men transform structural barriers from markers of individual failure into contextual constraints, thereby mitigating the sense of inadequacy embedded in dominant masculine norms. “Trying” emerges as a moral and relational practice, encompassing emotional presence, goal setting, sacrifice, and engagement with supportive peer networks. This reinterpretation reflects an implicit recognition of structural inequality while preserving a sense of dignity and agency.

Conclusion and Implications: These findings have important implications for social policy and the broader democratic project of inclusion and equity. Narrow constructions of masculinity and fatherhood, particularly those embedded in policy and public discourse, risk excluding economically marginalized men from full participation in family and social life. By illuminating how fathers actively reconstruct masculinity under constraint, this study highlights the need for policies and programs that support relational engagement, reduce structural barriers, and challenge stigmatizing narratives. Reframing masculinity as effort rather than outcome expands possibilities for participation, recognition, and belonging, core components of a more inclusive social order.

More broadly, this study calls for continued attention to how gendered expectations intersect with structural inequality to shape access to the “common good.” Supporting fathers in redefining and enacting care not only benefits individual families but also strengthens communities by fostering more equitable and participatory forms of social life.