The background to this paper is the introduction of ‘masculinity’ as a concept in gender equality policy documents in the Nordic countries. It examines 12 reports published by the Nordic Council of Ministers during the period 2019–2024 in which the concept appears. The aim was to investigate what is signified when men and masculinity are highlighted in these reports. Specifically, the analysis focuses on how the concepts of men and masculinity are used; how the use of these concepts relates to current scientific discussions; how problems, causes and solutions are constructed; and the emphasis or focus of reports in writing about men and masculinity.
Issues concerning men and masculinity have been referred to as the elephant in the room in gender equality policy; as Jeff Hearn (2024) points out, it is difficult to imagine a change in the direction of gender equality without men and masculinity changing. In the Nordic countries, masculinity politics has long been associated with the issue of “making fathers with children”, i.e. getting men to take greater responsibility as parents, thereby levelling the playing field for women’s and men’s participation in working life (Klinth, 2002; Järvklo, 2022). Against this background, it is interesting in itself that only one of the twelve reports deals with parenthood. This can be interpreted as a shift in perspective, with issues relating to men and masculinity now considered relevant to a wide range of gender equality policy issues such as climate, education, the internet and mental health.
The political implications of concepts
The concepts of men and masculinity are used in different ways in research. One approach that has been prominent in masculinity research specifically is the discussion of types of ‘masculinities’, in the plural, to describe different practices in which men engage. The assumption is often that men always exhibit masculinity, but in different forms. A common approach in gender research in general is to talk about gender coding, i.e. that different professions, characteristics, etc. are coded as either male or female. The starting point is then that women can also engage in male-coded activities, and vice versa. Differences in terminology can have an impact on political initiatives and practical interventions, for example if they lead to a strong emphasis on either promoting new, healthier masculinities or on men distancing themselves from and ceasing to engage in masculinity. However, in the reports analysed here, the different understandings are not used in a consistent manner, nor do they appear to lead in clearly different directions in terms of policy proposals.
One term that is used repeatedly in the reports, however, is ‘traditional masculinity’. This term is largely absent from interdisciplinary research in the humanities and social sciences on men and masculinity but is used to some extent in the more limited field of psychological research. One criticism that can be levelled at the use of the term ‘traditional’ to describe undesirable behaviours by men is that it suggests they are a result of men not having liberated themselves from tradition rather than benefiting from continued inequality between men and women.
What is the problem?
Policies focused on issues relating to men and masculinity can have different emphases or orientations (Messner, 1997). Several reports can be said to focus on the problems that men create, primarily for women but also for society at large. These include men’s sexism online, which limits women’s participation in public discourse, and informal workplace cultures created by men, which discourage women from feeling comfortable on equal terms. They also include men’s preferences for driving and eating meat, which hinder climate change mitigation. A focus on the problems men create is expected in a gender equality policy context, where the focus is on addressing inequalities between men and women.
Another understanding focused on the problems men experience also emerges in the report material. This includes (norms of) masculinity constituting an obstacle for men themselves, such as when ideals of self-reliance prevent them from seeking help for mental health issues. It also includes the taking of parental leave being described in solely positive terms to inspire fathers to become more involved as parents. However, this paints men as the big losers in unequal parenting, especially if there is no mention of the ways in which they benefit from inequality, such as time to devote to leisure interests or their careers. A focus on the problems men experience also emerges in discussions of men´s sexism on the internet; in some cases, the framing of these discussions captures men’s own psychological and social vulnerability and need for belonging rather than the effects of their actions on women and democratic discourse.
Differences between men
Men are not a homogeneous group, and men find themselves in different life situations depending on a range of factors such as class, race/ethnicity, sexuality, age and ability. Several reports highlight the importance of adopting an intersectional perspective to capture this complexity. Variations in age and across the course of men’s lives is the best represented factor, with reports focusing on everything from early childhood education, young people, education and mental ill health to sexual harassment of adult men in the workplace. However, none of the reports deal with older men as a group. Several reports highlight the lack of sufficient intersectional research as a limitation in terms of developing policy proposals, and investment in more intersectional research in the Nordic countries therefore appears justified.
The reports themselves are based on specific issues such as vocational training or climate change rather than minority groups, which are often the starting point for intersectional research. A clearer focus on different subgroups and minorities within the group of men – such as religious men; transgender men; gay, bisexual and pansexual men; men with disabilities; men experiencing economic vulnerability; and men belonging to racial, ethnic or national minorities – appears to be a priority if an intersectional ambition is to be realised and form a more comprehensive basis for the development of gender equality policy.
More questions to focus on
The analysis of the report material can also provide some guidance on the issues to focus on in the future. The topics addressed in the reports to do with the problems men create primarily concern the public sphere, such as education, work and politics. Here, greater interest in the problems men create in other spheres of society could be envisioned. For example, violence and abuse in intimate relationships and within families is an important issue, one that is not addressed in the report material analysed here, which could be relevant in highlighting how the various Nordic countries tackle issues related to support for victims and perpetrators, what violence prevention methods look like and how a more long-term promotion of respectful relationships and sexual consent could be developed.
Other areas that could be explored in more detail are leisure interests and club activities, such as sports and culture. These areas involve aspects such as personal commitment and belonging but also entail organisational considerations with regard to clubs, organisations and companies. What are the gender and equality issues in the Nordic countries in these spheres? To what extent, for example, are boys and men socialized into gender norms and sexism within the world of sports (Messner & Sabo, 1994) and what opportunities are there to develop more inclusive and less homophobic environments instead? (Anderson, 2009) What lessons can be learned in terms of organisation and leadership to promote equal opportunities, including working methods that promote, prevent and remedy?
When it comes to other male-dominated spheres of society, arenas involving the legal and illegal use of violence are prominent in public debate. As a result of the changed security situation in Europe, efforts are being made in the Nordic countries to strengthen military capacity. What problems and opportunities exist in terms of gender and equality in the military sphere in the Nordic countries, and how do defence initiatives affect issues of masculinity and equality? At the same time, there are ongoing debates and initiatives to tackle gang-related crime, another male-dominated sphere that creates problems, not least in the form of acts of violence. What are the issues surrounding gender, masculinity and gender equality in criminal environments in the Nordic countries and what lessons can be learned from both preventive and remedial efforts?
When it comes to problems men experience, closer attention could be paid to the various forms of discrimination, stigmatisation and violence that affect different groups of men. Men may be vulnerable, for example, as homosexual, bisexual, queer and transgender persons; as members of national, religious or racial/ethnic minorities; by living with chronic illnesses or disabilities; and/or by finding themselves in precarious situations economically and in the labour market. An intersectional perspective can capture the fact that men’s (and women’s) life situations are characterised by a wide range of factors other than gender, with the interaction between these often presenting specific opportunities and challenges. Although several reports emphasise the importance of an intersectional perspective, more could be done to focus specifically on the experiences of different minority groups.
A problem without conflict?
One of the starting points for this study has been Bacchi’s critical perspective on the construction of problems in policy texts (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Overall, it can be said that there is a recurring tendency in a number of reports, though not all, that can be described as presenting a problem without conflict. Although the reports deal with various issues of gender equality, there seems to be a reluctance to articulate conflict (cf. Wendt, 2002). Conceptually, the term ‘traditional’ is often used, suggesting that the cause of gender inequality is that men have not liberated themselves from tradition not that they benefit from unequal arrangements. In identifying the problem of men eating more meat and driving more than is sustainable for the climate, an argument is made against campaigns focused on gender, masculinity and climate When discussing the unequal uptake of parental leave, only the positive aspects of committed parenting are highlighted, with nothing said about the potential conflict over who should perform unpaid reproductive work (R4). Parts of discussions focused on men’s misogyny on the internet focus on this behaviour being fundamentally understandable given men’s own vulnerability (R6) rather than the consequences for women’s political participation and democratic discourse in general (R7).
These examples paint a picture of a focus on consensus, suggesting that in principle there is agreement over equality, even though certain obstacles remain. However, this does not always involve challenging the practices that men engage in or highlighting what men gain from inequality. This is reminiscent of what political theorist Chantal Mouffe (2005) has termed a ‘post-political’ approach. This is characterised by a belief that a universal rational consensus is possible in politics, through which one can “reconcile all conflicting interests and values” (Mouffe, 2005: 3). In contrast to the post-political approach, Mouffe argues that there are always different perceptions, interests, desires and proposals pertaining to how society should look and change, and that it is important for democracy that the fundamental antagonistic dimension of politics is recognised and nurtured.
The post-political approach is also not particularly compatible with gender research, which often understand constructions of gender as related to power and inequality. Were policy discussions to be research based (cf. Rudnicki & Wojnicka, 2024), it is conceivable that they would more clearly articulate potential conflicts of values and interests. At the same time, it is perhaps an open question to what extent a focus on either consensus or conflict is most effective in bringing about social change.