Another case in which one could argue the emphasis is on problems men experience is in a report on fathers and parental leave (R4). Increasing men’s involvement as parents has long been a priority issue in Nordic gender equality policy (Klinth, 2002; Järvklo, 2022). It is therefore interesting that only one of the twelve reports analysed in this study deals with parenthood. This shows that aspects related to masculinity are relevant to a number of different gender equality policy issues and should not be treated synonymously with parental involvement.
Despite the fact that the present and involved father has become something of a flagship for Nordic gender equality policy, the actual take-up of parental leave by men ranges from 11 to 30 per cent (R4: 7). This raises the question over why men still do not take a larger share of parental leave. The report discusses the potential obstacles to more equal uptake, such as norms about men as the main breadwinners and women as the primary caregivers. At the same time, paternity leave is emphasised as something positive:
Paternity leave is an opportunity for fathers to both develop a close relationship with their children and also to develop the skills they need to feel confident in their role as caregiver. (R4: 38)
…it is abundantly clear that when fathers take longer leave, they experience a range of benefits, from better relationships with their partners, greater satisfaction with the involvement they have with their children, to even experiencing a higher level of life satisfaction. (R4: 7)
These insights should hopefully inspire fathers to assume a greater share of the parental leave they are eligible to take. (R4: 8)
Paternity leave is described here as something unambiguously positive. It is an opportunity for men to develop and improve close relationships with their children and partners, develop their own skills and achieve greater satisfaction in life. The report seems to suggest that men have everything to gain from becoming equal parents and that an awareness of the benefits of involved parenting should inspire them to that end. The fact that men are not equal parents thus appears to be something that is primarily detrimental to them. It is a problem men experience – fathers are presented to be somewhat ignorant and tired and in need of insight and inspiration.
One way to describe this understanding is as that of a problem without conflict. There is an obvious problem in that men are still not close to taking equal parental leave, despite decades of policies aimed at “making fathers with children”. At the same time, there is no conflict in the issue. Above all, there is no conflict of interest between heterosexual fathers and mothers over who should perform unpaid reproductive work and who can instead free up time to devote to their work and career, civil society, political engagement, friendships or leisure interests. Nor is there any conflict of values among men themselves, between, for example, wanting to be an equal parent and wanting to devote the time and commitment necessary for a successful career. In this way, the report can be said to appeal to men’s self-interest in becoming more involved as parents (and thereby achieving greater life satisfaction) but not their potential willingness to share parenting more equally out of a sense of solidarity.
A rich history of feminist thought and gender research has analysed the gendered division of labour in various ways as a question of power and inequality. In this tradition, one could also ask what men gain from inequality and not just what prevents men from being equal parents. While there may be positive aspects to committed parenting, there may equally be desirable aspects to letting someone else take primary responsibility for reproductive work, thereby freeing up time for other things. For example, the report highlights what women would gain from more equal parental leave: “better opportunities for career advancement and to thrive also outside the home” (R4: 7). It would not have been inconceivable to discuss such advantages in relation to men as well. Perhaps the problem is not solely psychological (men’s lack of inspiration) but also related to the greater opportunities for career development and fulfilment outside the home that men (who live in relationships with women) can achieve through unequal parenting.
A third example of understanding problems men experience can be found in the report material on men’s misogyny online. As described in the previous section, one report focuses on men’s digital violations constituting an obstacle to women’s participation in democratic discourse (R7). However, the problem can also be framed in terms of the problems men experience, which is clear in another report on the same theme (R6). Here, the focus is primarily on understanding the men who engage in misogyny online and the social and psychological problems they experience:
…many of the users had originally sought emotional and social support from the forums. (R6: 8)
…it is for these reasons, not any derived toxified or malicious intent, that the men initially seek them out. (R6: 30)
According to this understanding, men choose to engage in misogynistic internet forums to access emotional and social support, and the report states emphatically that there are no underlying malicious intentions. Furthermore, men’s misogyny online is discussed as a matter of fulfilling basic human needs:
The psychological motivation to be part of something bigger than the individual stems from a fundamental human motivation to engage in meaningful, enduring relationships – to belong – in order to not experience feelings of loneliness and social jealousy. (R6: 18)
…active usage [of forums] might be perceived as boundary seeking behaviour, and a morbid curiosity rather than a misogynistic statement. (R6: 19)
In its quest to understand sexist men, the report offers a sympathetic interpretation of their motivations. It focuses on the basic human need for belonging and views participation in misogynistic forums as an expression of curiosity. The report argues that men in the Nordic countries – despite all the talk of gender equality – still live in a reality that does not accept men who are sad, vulnerable or seeking support and validation. In this light, seeking out internet forums appears to be “an obvious and healthy solution and coping strategy” (R6: 19), as the forums can offer “a place to belong, and a source of recognition, respect and confirmation”. (R6: 20)
Although these internet forums are certainly anti-democratic, men’s involvement in them is primarily treated as a question of how men deal with their own susceptibility and vulnerability: we should understand this as “anti-democratic coping strategies” (R6: 38). Even when one user on an incel forum compares being socially rejected to being raped and calls himself ‘JosefMengelecel’ (referring to the Nazi chief physician at Auschwitz), the report emphasises: “it’s also understandable” (R6: 19).
It becomes clear that this understanding centres on the problems men experience: they are sad, vulnerable or socially rejected. It is basically understandable that they engage in misogynistic forums to fulfil their basic human needs for belonging, affirmation and curiosity. Although the internet forums are described as anti-democratic in the report, there is also clear sympathy for the men who are active there.
The question of how far one should go to understand men’s sexism has long been debated in feminist research on violence. Although there are different points of view, some have long warned that an uncritical focus on perpetrators’ psychology risks portraying men as the real victims (Lundgren, 2012). A current example is the concept of ‘himpathy’, which has begun to be used in the wake of #metoo to describe excessive sympathy for perpetrators at the expense of the women who have been victimised (Manne, 2019; Uhnoo et al., 2024). On the one hand, it may be important to understand how certain men develop sexist or violent behaviours for those who, for example, want to design effective preventive measures. On the other hand, a focus on underlying, universal human needs can obscure certain dimensions, not least why it is through misogynistic online communities specifically that socially rejected men seek refuge. On this point, critical gender perspectives can contribute an important dimension.
Overall, there are several clear examples in the report material that can be said to address problems men experience. In some cases, masculinity is explicitly stated as being an obstacle for men themselves: something that prevents them from seeking help and support when they are feeling unwell. In other cases, the report only describes the potential benefits for men from a shift towards gender equality – such as taking more parental leave – making no mention of how they benefit from the current division of labour. This risks creating the impression that it is primarily men who lose out as a result of gender inequality. In a third case, a discussion about misogyny online is framed as an issue that primarily concerns men’s own social and psychological problems and unfulfilled general human needs, i.e. the emphasis is more on the problems men themselves experience than the problems men cause for others.
Differences between men
The third corner of Messner’s Triangle of masculinity politics concerns differences between men. ‘Men’ are not a homogeneous group, and men’s life situations vary according to factors such as age, generation, location, class and economic resources, sexuality, religion, ability and race/ethnicity. This means that some men have a great deal of power, resources, influence and status, while others find themselves in more vulnerable positions. Given the significant differences that can exist between different groups of men, the American cultural theorist bell hooks (2000) asks: to which men do women actually want to be equal?
Simply talking about gender equality risks obscuring other dimensions of inequality that are, in practice, intricately intertwined with gender constructs in complex ways. In terms of issues concerning men and masculinity, this could be which experiences and perspectives of men explicitly or implicitly colour the understanding of problems and solutions that become relevant. In an illuminating study of men’s activism for gender equality in the United States, We’re not equipped, sociologist Tal Peretz (2018) analyses precisely this problem. The group he studied, which focused on combating inequality between men and women, did not have the tools to deal with issues specific to gay or religious men, who therefore went on to form their own groups. The gender equality group and its views and working methods were thus implicitly rooted in the experiences and perspectives of secular and heterosexual men, and their approach proved not to be generally applicable to all men as had been assumed.
Several of the gender equality policy reports analysed here emphasise the importance of an intersectional perspective to highlight that women and men are heterogeneous categories:
Gender, an expression of the social signifiers of sex, is understood through an intersectional approach, which also includes power structures such as class, ethnicity, functional variation and sexuality. (R10: 5)
Nordic women are not a homogeneous group. Neither are Nordic men or people who define themselves between or beyond the binary gender system. How gender identities are combined with statuses such as socioeconomic background, ethnicity, disabilities, age, sexual orientation, and gender expression plays a crucial role in terms of an individual’s situation and position in society. (R8: 21)
The needs of marginalized women, such as women with disabilities and trans women, need to be mainstreamed in all support services. (R7: 4)
Although there is a clear awareness of the importance of adopting an intersectional perspective, there are also knowledge gaps that make it difficult to base policy recommendations on intersectional knowledge:
But no information or initiatives were identified that discuss the gender implications of the energy transition among the Sámi, nor the different gendered perspectives and experiences across regions, age groups and other intersectional dimensions. (R8: 58)
...a striking silence within the field of research and a ‘colour blindness’ regarding what the categories of women and men look like, what their backgrounds are and whether they are covered by any of the grounds for discrimination other than gender and age. Studies of sexual harassment mainly include white women and men [...] Focusing solely on gender and age can therefore lead to knowledge about sexual harassment in the workplace in the Nordic countries becoming fragmented. Intersectional perspectives on vulnerability in the lives of individuals and groups could increase knowledge about sexual harassment in the workplace in the Nordic countries. (R12: 12)
The reports thus identify shortcomings both in relation to gender equality initiatives and in research that make it difficult to translate intersectional approaches into knowledge-based policy proposals. Therefore, it seems justified to invest in more intersectional research in the Nordic countries.
Although intersectionality is broadly concerned with understanding the mutual embeddedness of different vectors of power (Hill Collins, 2019; Alinia & Berggren, 2023), there are differences in how it is applied in activism and social movements (Evans & Lépinard, 2020) and in research (McCall, 2005). Perhaps the most common approach in intersectional research is to start from the experiences of a subordinate group at the intersection of two or more categories. A prime example of this is that intersectional perspectives have been developed based on the position of Black women in the United States, where it has been pointed out that black women’s experiences are specific to them and do not necessarily coincide with the experiences of either white women or black men (Crenshaw, 1991). This approach can also be used in relation to other marginalised groups, for example by highlighting young LGBTI people with disabilities (Toft & Franklin, 2020).
In the report material, age appears to be the category that is treated most inclusively, with the reports covering everything from early childhood education to young men’s mental health and adult men in working life (although older men are absent from the reports). There is also some representation of place, as one report focuses on ‘geographically isolated labour markets’ (R11). In contrast to intersectional research, which often draws on the experiences of marginalised groups, the report material contains few analyses that explicitly take subgroups or minorities within the category of men as a starting point. There is therefore significant untapped potential in taking a more direct approach based on different minority groups within the category of men and their specific experiences and situations, such as: transgender men; homosexual, bisexual and pansexual men; men with disabilities; men living with low economic standing; men belonging to indigenous peoples and national minorities; religious men; Afro-Nordic men and men from other racial/ethnic minorities.
Overall observations
In this section, the gender equality policy reports are analysed using Messner’s Triangle of masculinity policy orientations and emphases. Unsurprisingly for a discussion of gender equality policy, several of the reports focus on problems men create. These are primarily problems that men create for women, such as limiting women’s participation in public democratic discourse through online misogyny or maintaining exclusionary informal workplace cultures that mean women do not feel comfortable on the same terms. Other problems are those that men create for society at large, not least hindering the green transition by preferencing meat over following dietary advice to eat more plant-based foods, driving cars more than using public transport, or cycling with a lack of consideration for other road users, thereby resulting in fewer people choosing this mode of transport.
Another perspective is presented in a number of the reports that focuses on problems men experience. This includes (norms of) masculinity limiting men themselves, for example the ideal of self-sufficiency causing men who feel unwell to avoid seeking support and care. Similarly, a discussion about fathers taking parental leave to a much lesser extent than mothers only highlights the positive aspects of parental leave, making it appear that it is men who suffer from inequality (while the benefits to men from women doing unpaid work are not mentioned). Finally, misogynistic men on the internet are discussed in relation to their own social and psychological vulnerability, with sympathetic interpretations presented that downplay sexism and focus on men’s curiosity or universal, basic needs for belonging.
Discussions on gender equality policy focusing on men and masculinity need to strike a balance between the problems men create and the problems men experience. The risk of focusing too much on the problems men create is condemning their actions without looking at the processes through which they develop sexist beliefs and behaviours. It can be important to understand these when developing effective measures to prevent or remedy gender equality issues. On the other hand, the risk of focusing too much on the problems men experience is that the broader context of inequality disappears from view. In an effort to understand men, unequal and sometimes illegal actions can be legitimised or excused, creating the impression that men/perpetrators are the real victims. The balance between the problems men create and the problems men experience therefore needs to be analysed.
Several reports reveal a clear awareness that men and women are not homogeneous groups and that factors such as race/ethnicity, class, sexuality and ability are important to consider in analyses, which therefore need to have an intersectional perspective. Several reports highlight the existence of knowledge gaps in terms of intersectional perspectives, which is why a research initiative to strengthen intersectional research in the Nordic region could be justified. Age is the best represented factor in the reports. For intersectionality to be translated into policy recommendations, much would be gained by focusing more clearly on the various minority groups within the group of men, such as religious, national, racial/ethnic and sexual minorities, as well as men with disabilities or men experiencing economic precarity.