https://www.mdu.se/

Drawing upon the work of Sara R Farris on femonationalism, this article presents an empirical study of the men’s group activities of ‘Vi är Sverige’ (‘We are Sweden’), an NGO that educates male migrants in gender equality. How are problems of gender inequality presented in this context? What versions of gender equality are being taught, and what are the pros and cons thereof from a feminist perspective? Methodologically, this paper draws upon a thematic analysis of public documents and media postings from Vi är Sverige, as well as on observations and individual interviews with members of one of its men’s groups. Our findings indicate that, in these activities, problems of gender inequality were attributed to non-Western men and their perceived lack of Swedish attitudes and values; while injustices done by native Swedish men were passed over in silence. Hence, we have found femonationalist tendencies in civic-integration programmes implemented by an organisation in Sweden that work with men’s groups. However, these programmes did promote a dynamic view of masculinity, thereby providing opportunities for change also to male migrants from societies with a predominantly Muslim population. The participants themselves expressed a favourable attitude towards gender equality, thereby constructing a non-white Swedish masculinity.

Sweden has been recognised as one of the most generous countries in terms of the governance of migration and asylum. The 2015 “refugee crisis” placed the Swedish migration and asylum system under extreme pressure when more than 163,000 refugees arrived in 2015. Like other EU members, Swedish migration policies have become gradually more restrictive, legitimised by the discourse of securitisation, whereby migration is addressed as a threat. By taking “securitisation” as a conceptual point of departure, the aim of this chapter is to analyse the official statements and non-official motives behind the securitisation turn of Sweden’s post-2015 migration policy and relate them to the vulnerable situation unaccompanied immigrants experienced when they came to Sweden in 2015 as refugees and asylum seekers. However, even if some of the interviewees had experienced racism and other negative attitudes and felt ill at ease waiting for their residency permit, unaccompanied immigrants are not necessarily vulnerable victims without the capacity and will to learn a new language, educate themselves and find a job.

Syftet är att ur ett genusperspektiv analysera den affischserie med information om covid-19 som Folkhälsomyndigheten publicerade år 2020 och som vänder sig särskilt till barn och ungdomar. Uppmärksamhet ägnas åt i vad mån den information som förmedlas innebär öppningar mot förändrade, al-ternativa och mer hållbara manligheter. Teoretiskt avstamp tas i kritiska stu-dier av män och maskuliniteter och postkolonial feministisk teori. Metoden som används är en variant av diskursanalys. Studien visar att affischserien inrymmer flera öppningar mot förändrade, alternativa, mer hållbara former av maskulinitet. Vita män framställs som bärare av en önskvärd omsorgs-orienterad manlighet, och sådan manlighet görs delvis även öppen för icke-vita män. Samtidigt finns i affischserien också öppningar mot rasifiera(nde) nykoloniala diskurser om invandrarmannen som problem för jämställdheten.

Drawing upon an analytical combination of What is the problem represented to be (WPR) approach and recent developments in securitization theory (ST) we in this paper zoom in on migration policy in Sweden 2015-2022. Starting with the common WPR issue ‘what is the problem?’ we highlight the threats as perceived by the Swedish Government to legitimate its autumn 2015 policy turn from ‘open your hearts’ to a more restrictive stance dressed in securitizing language. Exploring the justifying points of reference raised by the governing coalition and radical right/retrotopian party opposition in Parliament we also bring some notice to current Swedish migration policy responses related to the war in Ukraine. Arguably, this verbal migration turnaround highlights the need for not reifying party political positions, and at the same time showing that the concept of the in-securitized ‘abject migrant’ is particularly useful for making sense of Swedish migration policy taken place since 2015. Overall, we find the combination of WPR and ST fruitful for an analysis of the intricate relations exposed in the context of migration policies, thus also in a way confirming the ambiguity in policy-making that March and Olsen once described as “organized anarchy”.