Men as victims and invisible women

Gender studies: Master thesis, 30 hp

Men as victims and invisible women

The link between destructive male norms and violence A discourse analysis of Machofabriken 2.0

Ann Birging

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine Machofabriken 2.0 through discourse analysis.

Examine how concepts are filled with meaning and what alternative meanings that are excluded. I also scrutinized what pedagogic tools and strategies put forward to achieve change and discuss if it is possible to approach ordinary men as violent. Furthermore, I have analyzed underpinning assumptions of gender and violence and how masculinities, femininities, violence, and

responsibility are discursively produced. I have paid extra attention to three short movies; Real Life (Sexual harassment and bystander), Ice Cream (Consent and Free will) and Step-up (Pornography) with inspiration from feministfrequency.se to explore visual media and to pay attention to the Male Gaze, objectification and sexualization of women, constructed differences between men and women. Feminist Frequency provided me with the concept of Tropes in the examination of representations of boys and girls in the short movies.

The examination has uncovered gender biases in Machofabriken, which privilege the male over the female and runs the categories fixed and reveals how the masculine discourse has constructed women as the Other. This thesis argues, it has dismantled the destructive masculine discourse and how subjects of both genders are positioned and constituted within that discourse. This also means the construction of gender is already there, before the text, before the short movies.

Key words; violence prevention, men’s violence against women, men as victims, triad of men’s violence, destructive masculinities, invisible women, Women’s Human Rights, Istanbul

convention, gender equality

CONTENT

Abstract

1. Introduction 4

1.1 Purpose and research questions 5

2. Previous research

2.1 Changing destructive male norms 5

2.2 Men as victims 8

2.3 Swedish discourses of men’s violence against women 9 3. Theoretical point of departure

3.1 Discourse - subjectivity- power – knowledge 10

4. Method and Empirical material

4.1 Machofabriken 2.0 11

4.2 Context 12

4.3 To analyze Machofabriken 2.0 13

5. The link between destructive male norms and violence 15

5.1 Introduction 14

5.2 Changing destructive male norms 15

5.3 Supportive, invisible women and bystanders 19

5.4 Men as victims 21

5.5 Men as victims in Swedish gender equality discourse? 23 5.6 Stories about sexual harassment, rape, victims and bystanders 24

6 Concluding thoughts 32

References 35

Appendix 39

Introduction

Violence against women and girls in Sweden is, despite changes in the law regarding consent in 2018, prevention programs, and campaigns to stop men's and boy's sexual violence, still

increasing, and 23 200 sexual offenses were reported to the police in Sweden in 2019 (Brå 2019:5). But statistics on sexual violence against women and girls is repeated so often that they become abstract and almost invisible. Voices of women and girls in the #Metoo movement in 2017 dismantled men's sexual violence against women and girls in everyday spaces and places.

Girls testified about sexual abuse and harassment in school under the hashtags #tystiklassen and

#räckupphanden.

Violence prevention and ending men's violence against women is a prioritized question in Swedish gender equality politics. In 2016 the government launched a 10-year national strategy, where the importance of preventive measures and holding men accountable was emphasized (Skr. 2016/17:10).

However, it's equally important to examine how preventive programs are and this study wants to critically examine the violence prevention program Machofabriken 2.0, directed toward boys and girls in the ages between 13-25 to change male norms and attitudes regarding violence, consent, and challenge and change destructive masculinity norms. Pointing out ordinary men as violent toward women and girls, have historically been met with resistance. Therefore, the initiative Machofabriken 2.0 is hopeful regarding the possibility of approaching ordinary violent men.

The non-governmental organization MÄN is the primary producer of Machofabriken 2.0 and responsible for content, methods, and project management. The organization MÄN, actively work to redefine destructive masculinities and have translated the method Mentors in violence prevention and besides Machofabriken, initiated different projects with support from Arvsfonden;

Pojk och killjour på nätet, Project Box, Killar, Frihet från våld, En kommun fri från våld, Fatta Man, Mannen myten, Samtal för ett liv fritt från våld. And with support from EU's Rights, Equality, and citizenship program, Livscykeln. MÄN presented Machofabriken 2.0 as a solution for ending men's violence against women at the conference, #MeToo-What can schools do?

(2018). They also presented their model Triad of men's violence. According to MÄN, this model can counteract the resistance which occurs when men feel unfairly alleged as violent and can create multiple inputs for the work to change destructive male norms, instead of talking about men's different acts of violence as isolated events (UR Samtiden SVT Play). MÄN also expressed joy on a violence prevention seminar in 2017, about the fact that their methods, models,

knowledge, and concepts now are frequently used: Won victories for MÄN's violence prevention work: More and more people speak the same language (Annual report 2017). Therefore,

examining Machofabriken's knowledgebase, models, concepts and educational tools is of great interest in this study.

1.1 Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this study is to critically examine Machofabriken's knowledgebase, models and concepts, view of gender, power, injustice, and gender power structures. The focus is how concepts are filled with meaning and what alternative meanings that are excluded. In addition, I scrutinize what pedagogic tools and strategies they use to achieve change. I also discuss if it’s possible to approach ordinary men as violent and following questions have informed my examination of Machofabriken 2.0:

• What underpinning assumptions of gender, violence, and violence prevention are Machofabriken 2.0 departing from, and what other meanings are excluded?

• What are the consequences of Machofabriken's theoretical framing for the possibility of ending men’s violence against women and what solutions are silenced?

• How are masculinities, femininities, violence and responsibility discursively produced in Machofabriken 2.0, what are the consequences and what other meanings are

excluded?

2. Previous research

Below I will discuss previous research on violence prevention and how different discourses on men’s violence against women in Sweden effects what solutions are put forward and how the violent man is approached. I arrange this section through the following themes; Changing destructive male norms, where I discuss if the approach of changing destructive male norms are challenging the gender power order or risk reproducing men’s superior position and the problem with how violent men redefine the violence they inflict on others, as a way of distancing

themselves from violent acts. Men as victims in which I problematize potential risks of departing from the concept’s masculinities, hegemonic masculinities, the good man/bad man, as they might risk distancing violent men from violent acts and locate violence on Other men. And finally, Swedish discourses of men’s violence against women where I briefly will discuss the concept jämställdhet (gender equality) and different discourses of men’s violence against women.

Changing destructive male norms

Discussing men's violence against women is often met with anger or implications that "women are as violent as men" (Enander 2011, Wendt 2012, Lundgren et al 2001). Gottzen (2019) also highlights the problem of even naming Swedish gender-equal men as violent. How the pattern of connecting other violent men with patriarchy but Swedish violent men as deviant men and how feminist structural analyses often are perceived as a threat. He argues that Kristeva’s concept

Abject can be used to analyze and describe the ordinary Swedish violent man, which transcend the boundary between horrible deviants and ordinary Swedish men of equality (ibid 61. Violence prevention and engaging men and making them responsible in the work of promoting gender equality and ending men’s violence against women emerged internationally in the 1990s. This shift is, of course, important and valuable but according to (Flood et al 2015) also involves hesitations of how women’s knowledge base and leadership regarding men’s violence might be silenced and the importance of not losing sight of unequal gender power relations that produce inequalities and violence. It is also important that violence prevention interventions recognize the complexity of how all genders are affected by gendered social norms and how the construction of gender is intertwined with other axes of power (class, ages, ethnicities, ability, education), and how gendered social norms are supported by both men and women (ibid page 1586). It's equally important is to challenge the binary man/women “violence prevention work given to men should seek not only to challenge the dominant cultural meanings given to manhood, but the gender binaries and hierarchical policing of gender that complement them (ibid 2015). Same line of critique is articulated by Gibbs et al (2015:88), need to "consider the wider structural

impediments to change" and highlight the problem of gender binaries as long as a gender dichotomy is maintained, men will maintain hegemony. The binary also leads to a taken-for- granted heteronormativity and risk reinforcing men’s agency at the cost of women and other gender identities (Myrttinen 2018). Framing men as partners also risks taken-for-granted that all men have female partners and can be motivated through their intimate relations with women and girls (Flood 2015:164). It is also problematic that men’s violence against women is often

separated from sexual violence which Hearn (1998) calls the sexual subtexts of violence.

Many violence prevention programs focus on changing male norms and according to Myrttinen (2018), it could be questioned whether gender norm change programs are challenging gendered power hierarchies when focusing on changing individual men and expecting individual men to challenge societal resistance alone and ”placing men’s agency at the center of the activities carries with it the risk of cementing and transforming rather than challenging patriarchy” (Ibid 2018:572). Further, the development of “new masculinities” might only make “patriarchy more friendly and men less violent but stabilizing unequal gender power relations between men and women. overemphasizing the centrality of male agency and reifying logic of masculinist protection and control” (ibid 2018:550). Flood et al (2015) are also critical of the logic behind encouraging new positive and non-violent masculinities and the goal to redefine masculinity.

According to Gibbs et al (2015), many programs also tries to operationalize Freire’s theory of social change through creating safe platforms where men and boys are supported to reflect on the costs of masculinity and questions “whether these approaches can enable more structural shift in the form of hegemonic masculinity or whether they leave this unruffled”(ibid 2015:88). Another problem with changing male norms as a strategy for ending violence is according to Gottzen (2019) the code of honor which regulates men's violence by emphasizing patriarchal masculinity where men are expected to protect weaker individuals (women and children), not use violence against them and articulates violence against women as unacceptable. Sexual violence and

breaking the patriarchal honor norms create problems for young men and seems to challenge their self-image which threatens their dignity. Edin & Nilsson (2014) also revealed how men defend themselves and their violent behavior in different ways and how men's identity constructions clashed with the treatment program's goal to change individual men's attitudes and violent behavior.

Andersson & Umberson (2011) revealed how violent men construct gender through domination and positioned themselves as powerful, strong and rational and in this way constructed

themselves as masculine and women as feminine and reproduced men as dominant and normalized the binary man/women and the hierarchical gender order. But also, constructed themselves as powerless and vulnerable and victims of women’s provocations and in this way blamed their female partners for controlling them and minimized the violence. In doing so, they denied their own responsibility.

The issue of gendered violence is complex and there are indeed many different discourses producing different concepts, causes, and explanations of violence and gender. Male violence is often explained "with something else" (Hearn 2012:61). Gottzen (2019) discusses the role of shame in men’s violent behavior and how shame, patriarchal honor norms might work in ways that uphold the asymmetric gender power relations. This is done through articulations of regret and shame and through distancing himself from the violence he inflicts on others. In this way, the violent man can avoid the violent masculine subject position, which breaks the patriarchal honor code. When men are breaking this code of honour by using violence, this creates shame and feelings of failure and men do not want to be identified with the violence:

I am against violence! I mean it. Most people know that I do not see myself as a violent individual. They know me as a very kind person. Because I am very kind (Gottzen 2019:59).

This means that the role of distance affect who we understand as violent men and when

perpetrators are close to us, we find it hard to believe that they can do anything wrong. Stories of shame do something to the listener as well, it evokes emotions for the person which articulates shame making him appear as regretful and vulnerable and aware of the wrongdoing. According to Gottzen (2019), shame in itself, is neither liberating nor progressive, it can even uphold men's superiority, it can render violence and oppression invisible and produce a preoccupation with own individual feelings, and the pain of the Other is rendered invisible and less important (ibid 2019:112). Lucas Gottzen (2019) is also challenging the myth of Men's emotional inability and argues that this myth has its roots in what he calls, Western male emotion regime, in which emotional control is central and is a legacy from Descartes and the mind/body dualism.

Strindlund & Wig (2016) uses the concept Politics of violence, and the concept can work as a guide in the examinations of the different techniques to hide, silence and redefine violence and violent acts. They argue that the politic of violence does not primarily rest on people not knowing or understanding violence, but on not seeing and when people shut their eyes. They put forward

following different techniques used in other power regimes to hide/redefine violence; shift focus, redefine violence, when violence can’t be hidden, it can disappear when people shut their eyes, trivializing violence.

Men as victims

McCarry (2007) offers critical thinking of the concept masculinity and how it risk producing men as victims of gender power structures and how the concept masculinity produces abstract,

disembodied men and in this way produces a distance between actual men and the abstract concept masculinity and becomes reified into an autonomous ‘thing-in-itself’ and locate blame for male violence onto masculinity. Masculinities, therefore, risk reproducing male privileges and shift focus from men’s violent practices and victims of those violent acts. She also argues that some masculinity studies side-line feminist theorists or silence feminist work and how individual feminist theorists is not acknowledged and/or collectively grouped as part of feminism, obscures, not only the work of individual theorists but also produces a picture that there is only one

feminism when in fact there are plural feminisms. Or, selectively taking a particular gender perspective, using feminist theory, which fits the masculinity agenda. Jeff Hearn (1999) addresses the problem with men theorizing men’s privileged position in the social gendered hierarchy, which might lead to lacking critical awareness and the possibility of critical thinking of men’s superior position. And it could be questioned if privileged subject positions really are motivated in changing position, which means changing the core of how things are.

Hearn (2012) suggests that the concept Hegemony of men more accurately describe men’s superior position in society. This means shifting focus from masculinities to men’s practices.

Because violence is about the doing of violent practices, and most doings of violence are done by men. Real men in everyday life (Hearn (2012). Further, he argues for the need of a more multi- faceted power analysis, a material and discursive approach thus the material part can explain and illuminate the embodied part of violence. The concept Manhood acts is proposed by Morris &

Ratajczak (2019)and they also argues for the need to use concepts that more clearly put the focus on men's practices and direct focus on men's actual violence, and how the acts reproduce power and dominance over women and avoids the abstractness concepts of masculinities brings.

Jeff Hearn et al (2012) highlight the problem of mixing Swedish gender equality discourse and gender-polarized and stereotypical definitions of hegemonic masculinities and how this strategy might lead to a dichotomy of Swedish gender equal man/The Other men and produces hegemonic masculinity as the negative Other and in this way, construct "hegemonic masculinity as a gender stereotype and the patriarchal dimension is excluded" (Hearn et al 2012:47).

Swedish discourses of gender equality and men’s violence against women Sweden is perceived as one of the most gender-equal countries in the world and in 1995 United Nations named Sweden the world champion of gender equality (Tollin 2011:226). According to Yuval-Davis (1997), the construction of nations is intertwined with gender power hierarchies and conceptions of gender are an inevitable part of the creation of nations. Gendered subjectivities are produced and constituted by discourses and this can be connected to the Swedish national gender equality goal, where ending men’s violence against women is sub-target number sex and gender and nation are co-constructed and intertwined. Since the 1970’s, the concept of Jämställdhet (gender equality) has been used in Swedish politics. This means, for 40 years Swedish men have been understood as allies and partners, in the struggle for Gender Equality. It is a heteronormative concept encouraging cooperation between men and women (Tollin 2011). The heteronormative aspects built into this process, is constituted as co-operation between women and men and in this way, the Swedish gender equality discourse;

constitutes and enable certain types of subjectivities rather than others and the construction of gender creates limits and possibilities for thinking about doing gender equality (Magnusson 2008:8).

According to Tollin (2011), a development towards a more liberal and market-oriented welfare state emerged in the 1990s and illuminates how the gender equality discourse became a question of education “oriented towards methods, surveys and evaluations rather than social reforms” and how “gender mainstreaming is formulated in harmony with these methods” (Tollin 2011:228).

In The Politics of Fear (2002), Maria Wendt illuminates how different discourses in Sweden have defined and explained men’s violence in different ways. These differences affect what

approaches, solutions and political actions are possible to take and how different discourses on violence existed at the same time. From being understood as a private problem in the 1930s too slowly became recognized as a political problem. A Feminist gender power discourse, in which men’s violence against women was discussed in terms of gender and power and proposals and measures resulted in the Women's peace reforms in 1998 to counter men's violence against women. Historically,it has been almost impossible to talk about ordinary Swedish men as violent and following articulation reveals how strong the resistance is: it is understood that men are fundamentally against violence against women and Sweden is still better than other countries (Wendt 2002: 179). This is of course a problematic obstacle for the possibilities to end men’s violence against women. A Socio-psychological discourse and a Psychological discourse emerged in the 1970s in which men’s violence against women could be treated through care, treatment, and support from the curator or psychologist and both men and women would benefit from therapy. The focus on the individual or the relation between individuals, rendered other power structures, and power relations that affect individuals, invisible (Wendt 2002). The large- scale study Captured Queen (Lundgren et al 2001) offered critique of treating offenders as

deviant, and different from the ordinary Swedish man, but also, the victim was also understood as deviant or provoking. The view of men as deviant, means drawing from a socio-psychological discourse and in this way, violence is understood as a psychological problem that could be treated, and the unequal gender power relations as the root cause of men’s violence is rendered invisible. Captured Queen (2001), evoked a lot of anger especially for revealing how 56 percent of the women in the study had experiences of sexual violence from the ages of 15, not only in close relations but in schools, workplaces, night clubs and so on. It was the numbers (56%) of women being sexually abused and how common it was for ordinary women and girls to be sexually abused by ordinary normal Swedish men, that evoked most anger and the study was accused of being biased and false. In this way, Captured Queen challenged violence in close relations in the private sphere as the only violence possible to articulate (Wendt 2012).

Tollin (2011) revealed how the feminist discourse was silenced around 2004, and it became impossible to talk about feminism. This might imply a shift from a Feminist discourse in which feminism was on the agenda in the political debate and most party leaders declared themselves feminists and the metaphor Feminist Glasses frequently used (Wendt 2002, Tollin 2011). Critical examinations of documents from SKL (now Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner SKR) revealed articulations of men as victims and the possibility for men taking responsibility for violence against women depends on successful treatment (Weiss 2019), and this implies that the socio- psychological discourse still is strong in Sweden.

3. Theoretical point of departure

The theoretical point of departure of this thesis is Feminist post-structural theorizing

(Weedon1987) of gender, power, discourses and subjectivity, and discourse theory, which is both a theory and a method (Jørgensen & Phillip's 2002). This means understanding gender, violence, and sexuality as social constructions, produced through discourses that constitute a certain kind of gendered subjectivities, gender power relations, gender positions, and specific kind of gendered social practices. The gendered subjectivities that certain discourses produce create individuals that understand the world in specific ways that are understood as normal and natural.

Subjectivity is produced through discourses and cannot be separated from everyday life (material social practices). Within post-structuralism, knowledge and power are intertwined, and in this way, knowledge production is also the production of power (Weedon 1987). Social constructions of violence, gender, emotions, and sexuality are never fixed and stable but always in process and filled with different meanings at different times. Different contexts and, of course, creates different possibilities and limitations for how subjects can do and understand gender and sexuality (Weedon 1987). Framing the study this way has consequences for how the individual subject is understood. The concept subjectivity is therefore essential in this study;

Unlike humanism, which implies a conscious, knowing, unified, rational subject, post- structuralism theorizes subjectivity as a site of disunity and conflict, central to processes of political change (Weedon 1987:21).

Particular interest is put on the social construction of gender, masculinity, and violence and how they are produced through Machofabriken. The underlying assumption is that these processes (re)produce gender hierarchies and unequal gender power relations, which position the categories of men and women differently in society. These constructed differences between men and women produce consequences in women and men's everyday life. I am particularly interested in how these processes affect the possibilities to make men responsible and to achieve social change.

Machofabriken is understood as a discourse producing knowledge and certain assumptions of the meaning of gender, masculinities, norms, and social change. These assumptions are part of "the broader discursive battle over knowledge and power" (Weedon 1987:111). The concept of discourse is central in Discourse Theory (Jørgensen & Phillip's 2002) and defined as a particular way of talking about and understanding aspects of the world.

The study departs from the concept gendered violence and definitions of men's violence against women anchored in international legal instruments ratified by Sweden; Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence 2011) and UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Gendered violence is understood as a social relation between perpetrator and victim, in the sense that both perpetrators and victims are necessary to define violence (Walby et al. 2017:32). And sexual violence is one dimension of gendered violence and a result of

intertwined individual, relational and societal processes (García-Moreno et al. 2015).

4 Method and empirical material

4.1 Machofabriken 2.0

Machofabriken 2.0 is a violence prevention program and a tool for gender equality work, produced by the non-governmental organizations MÄN with Unizon as co-owner of the project.

Machofabrien 2.0 is directed toward young people in the ages between 13-25, and mixed groups are emphasized. According to Machofabriken, masculinity norms need to be at the center of violence prevention, and changing theses norms will stop young men’s violent attitudes and behaviors. Machofabriken also argues that male-norms mean increased risk for men becoming lonely when they grow older. The purpose is to help young people to put words on, reflect on and counteract destructive norms, especially those linked to masculinity and argues that many of the male norms that contribute to violence are reinforced at an early age (page 8). Machofabrikens 2.0 is available online at machofabriken.se. Women shelters organized by UNIZON and local groups organized by MÄN have free access to the material, but Machofabriken is also available for schools and organizations to buy.

Machofabriken consists of four chapters; 1. Norms and boxes 2. Violence and consent

3. Power and relations. 4. To Feel. Each section is divided into four themes and is built around sixteen short movies and connected exercises, intending to illustrate how male norms affect young people’s lives. The method has a tutorial section with tips and instructions, and a theory part linked to Machofabriken's different chapters and themes (page 5). The educational approach is self-reflective and promoting positive attitudes. The main pedagogic tools are the sixteen short movies and the Man Box. The Man Box symbolizes male norms and how men can choose to step outside the Box to change destructive masculine norms. It is a tool to describe how norms and values around masculinity create and enforce limitations for action and life choices for young people. The goal is to promote new and equal ways of being. Machofabriken 2.0 also addresses sexual harassment and sexualized violence.

4.2 Context

Machofabriken 2.0 can be placed within the framework of the Swedish gender-equality discourse and sub-target no 6; men's violence against women and the involvement of boys and men in the work of preventing that violence (SKR2016 17-10) and can be understood as the structural and institutionalized power dimension which produce gendered subjects, inclusions, exclusions, and limitations. A close collaboration between MUCF, UNIZON, and MÄN emerged around 2007 when the Minister of Gender Equality and Integration commissioned the National Board of Youth an educational assignment regarding prevention of violence (IJ2007/2250/UNG) and one of the goals, was to create awareness of men's violence against women and girls.

In the report Act and prevent violence against young women (Ungdomsstyrelsen 2010), the importance of seeing young men as victims were articulated:

It is important to emphasize that boys and men are also subject to violence. They are both perpetrators and victims. Gender and norm-critical work among guys and young men about masculinity and violence can then be an essential part of preventive work (page 10).

Since preventive work in Sweden was new at the time, MÄN, UNIZON, and Ungdomsstyrelsen, Länsstyrelsen Stockholm, made a study tour to acquaint themselves with prevention work. In this way, MÄN, UNIZON, and MUCF broke new ground in the growing discourse masculinities and violence prevention in Sweden, and the organization MÄN and their models, knowledge, and concepts seem to have been given a prominent role in Sweden's gender-equality goal nr 6.

In 2011, the Government commissioned MUCF (U2011/2232/UC) to develop knowledge and support that focuses on attitudes and values around equality, masculinity, and violence. The report Unga och våld was released in 2013, and on behalf of the National Board of Youth, MÄN conducted two studies within the report; Före han slår (Berg et al. 2013a), which describes effect- evaluated, universal violence-prevention methods with a gender perspective and Låt 101

blommor blomma (Berg et al. 2013b), which describes violence prevention work in Sweden.

4.2 To analyze Machofabriken 2.0

This study takes the form of discourse analysis and critical examination of Machofabriken 2.0.

Discourse analysis (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002) have been used to answer the research

questions, and the study started with a brief overview of Machofabriken's chapters, short movies, exercises, and theory section. Then followed by a systematic examination of articulations

(women and men, violence, norms, purposes, instructions to the leader) in each chapter, theme, and each exercise. I also searched for essential concepts and theories in the theory section. These examinations assisted me in the search for patterns and formulations and to find key signifiers (nodal points) on three levels: Social Myths (organize society), Nodal point (organize discourse), and Master-Signifier (organize identity). Key signifiers are empty signifiers, filled with different meanings in different discourses through chains of equivalence and chains of difference.

After watching all short movies and when the deconstruction of different articulations was in process, I decided to pay extra attention to short films approaching sexual violence. This focus was motivated by the result of the first overview, which revealed that women rarely are visually represented in Machofabriken and that in itself made me curious to examine short movies that actually are about women's position in relation to men and the violence men inflict on women, which I understand as the core of violence prevention.

In this way, the three short movies approaching sexual violence, Real Life, Ice-Cream, Step up.

Moreover, the short film Garageband, which is the only movie where a woman is visually

represented and have a voice, are the short movies carefully examined and analyzed in this study.

How does Machofabriken work with sexual abuse through the movies? How are women and men represented?

In the search for tools and methods to examine the short movies, I found Feministfrequency.com (Anita Sarkeesian), and she influenced me in how to explore visual media and to pay attention to the Male Gaze, objectification and sexualization of women, constructed differences between men and women. Feminist Frequency provided me with the concept of Tropes. Tropes are a common pattern in a story or a recognizable attribute in a character that conveys information to the audience and becomes a cliché when it is overused, and often tropes perpetuate offensive

stereotypes. The dialogues in four of the short movies were transcribed and analyzed (attached in the appendix (page 39).

I analyzed the short movies through the concept Tropes, and I searched for patterns of how men and women are represented, who is the violent man, and who is the victim. I analyzed the role of

the Man Box in the films and the consequences of visual representations and use of the Man Box.

I also examined how Machofabriken directs attention to the problem and how the change will come about through connected exercises and instructions to the leader, hoping to illuminate how Machofabriken wants to solve the problem, the short movie is representing.

Discourse Theory offers tools to conduct analyses on three levels, and when searching for nodal points organizing society, I turned to Swedish gender equality discourse, which I understand enables Machofabriken's knowledge production. I searched for when and how masculinities, violence prevention, and young men occurred in the Swedish gender equality discourse. This idea happened in the process of searching for previous research on discourses on jämställdhet and men's violence in Sweden and articulation about how the feminist discourse was silenced in Sweden around 2004 (Tollin 2011). According to Discourse Theory (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002), this can be analyzed as a struggle over meaning. Empty signifiers (nodal points) are also floating signifiers. Meaning, the production of meaning is open for contestation, and in this way, hegemonic closures are never stable. I wanted to examine if gender equality and the concept of Men's violence against women might have shifted meaning compared to meanings produced by the silenced feminist discourse. I started the examination in the newly released handbook Inget att vänta på (2020) and worked my way backward to documents produced by authorities

In the analysis of discourses, I will use the concept of empty signifiers or nodal points when describing the discursive production on all three levels. I will also use discourse theories concept of identity, hegemony, and antagonism, to analyze if there is an antagonistic relationship between two mutually exclusive identities (Jørgensen & Phillip's 2002). These concepts will help me to look closer to how and if the ordinary violent men are possible to approach, or if the short movies are reproducing the pattern of distancing violent men from violent acts. See previous research;

(Gottzen 2019, Edin & Nilsson 2014, Strindlund & Wig 2016, Andersson & Umbersson 2011, Hearn 2012).

5 The link between destructive male norms and violence

5.1 Introduction

Below I will present and discuss the result of the discourse analysis of Machofabriken 2.0 as follows:

A) Changing destructive male norms. Machofabriken's strategies for change will be discussed. B) Supportive, invisible women and bystanders. C) Men as victims. D). Men as victims in the

Swedish gender equality discourse. E). Stories about sexual harassment, rape, victims, and bystander. Problematizations of Machofabriken's main pedagogic tools, the Man Box and short movies and the consequences will be discussed together with problematizations of the three short

movies Real Life (Sexual harassment and bystander), Ice Cream (Consent and Free will) and Step-up (Pornography), connected exercises, instructions to the leader, purposes, representations of boys and girls.

5.2 Changing destructive male norms

The main focus in Machofabriken 2.0 is how young men are affected by male norms and the link between destructive masculine norms and violence and offers tools to change destructive male norms and work for equality and end violence. The change will come about through self- reflection and sharing experiences in safe spaces, practicing empathy, reflect violence, consent, pornography, practicing compassion and understanding, conversations, and being an active bystander. The primary pedagogic tools in Machofabriken, the Man Box, and short movies, will be presented in the section Stories about sexual harassment, rape, victims, and bystanders.

Following articulation set the stage for focus of attention in Machofabriken:

Participants, regardless of gender, may put into words what expectations exists on men in society and how they are maintained, changed, difficult to live up to or break. Focus is to make male norms visible and the participants – regardless of gender – shall problematize expectations and norms that restrict boys and men (page 52).

In this way, Machofabriken enables individual reflections to change (male) attitudes (how men are affected by male norms) and silence how gender power structures produce inequalities and also silence how women are affected by masculine norms. Girl's role in this setting is

participating in helping young men and in creating a female understanding, how young men are affected and restricted by male norms. How these norms influence girls are silenced, and it creates a contradiction between the goal to reach gender equality and end violence against women and producing women as invisible but participating as supportive.

Machofabriken is using male norms instead of (gendered) social norms, which support the male- only focus and hides the dynamics between the sexes. How norms affect men and women differently, and the use of male norms instead of social norms and the strategy of changing destructive masculine norms might reproduce unequal power relations (Weedon 1997).

Machofabriken 2.0 offers no opportunities to explore how gendered power relations and other power structures such as class, race, sexuality, and so on, which situate both boys and girls differently in gendered social hierarchies and have impacts on their everyday life. Gibs et al.

(2015) point out the importance of challenging gendered power structures to achieve social change and how individual changes might not lead to structural changes. Myrttinen (2018) highlights how focusing on changing destructive male norms, might reinforce male privilege instead of challenging the same. And the strategy of changing masculine norms, don't take into account the strong existing patriarchal norms, what Gottzen (2019) calls the code of honor. And he argues that violent men, in different ways, actively work to avoid being connected to the

violence they inflict on women and girls. According to Flood et al. (2015), changing destructive masculinities and ending violence through changing attitudes and behaviors might not lead to a change of several reasons, and he draws attention to the problem of how beliefs and attitudes, not always correspond with practice and vice versa.

It is also problematic that the concept of gender equality is not defined in Machofabriken 2.0, and no lessons, exercises, or opportunities to discuss gender equality is offered. It implies a taken for granted meaning, without any connection to structural dimensions. Social norms are defined as male norms in Machofabriken and silence how both women and men reproduce gender power hierarchies (Flood et al. 2015) in everyday practices. Therefore it is essential to examine and challenge how men and women reproduce male domination and challenge how men and women in different ways are reproducing gender roles and gender norms.

To point out men as the problem of men's violence against women and to hold them accountable is a feminist goal and is, of course, understood as progress and a step in the right direction.

However, I suggest that the outcome instead is a men-only focus, putting male-to-male violence (to themselves and other men) at the forefront and how young men are affected by destructive male norms and in this process—hides how gender is relationally constructed. Also, women, as active agents, are silenced. Machofabriken, therefore, produces individual focus on men and personal change or redefinition of masculinities.

One explanation might be Machofabriken departing from the concept of masculinities and the model triad of men's violence, which creates an intense focus on the link between masculinities and violence. MÄN argues that triad of men's violence can counteract the resistance which occurs when men feel unfairly alleged as violent and can create multiple inputs for the work to change destructive male norms, instead of talking about men's different violence's as isolated events (UR Samtiden SVT Play). In Machofabriken masculinity is defined as what is suggested or expected of boys and men (page 22) and one purpose is:

to help participants to see their value decoupled from both how they live up to expectations and the need for confirmation of others who are considered masculine (page 22).

McCarry (2007) has illuminated the limitations of departing from the concept of masculinity and how the idea makes it possible to place violence on an abstract level. And, in this way, take away attention from violent men and violent practices—departing from the concept masculinity, therefore, risk reproducing male privileges and shift focus from men’s violent acts and victims of those violent acts. I agree with McCarry (2007) that masculinities create vagueness and

abstractness as if Machofabriken is challenging the gender power structures and as if it is possible for men to be responsible for the violence they inflict on women and girls. Hearn et al. (2012) have also raised attention to how the concept of hegemonic masculinities creates abstractness, hides violent acts, and power structures. Instead, he put forward the concept Hegemony of men

and argues this concept more correctly address direct attention to the violent men and violent practices and enables recognition to the root cause of violence and point toward structures that producing inequalities. Morris & Ratajczak (2019) have the same line of critique how the concept masculinities, hides the actual violent men and propose Manhood acts to better direct attention to violence as a social practice. I also understand these concepts as more closely connected to post- structural understandings discourses as productive (Weedon 1997).

Gender neutrality further assists in producing a male-only focus in Machofabriken and definitions of violence departing from psychological and medical discourses. Machofabriken departs the Norwegian psychologist Per Isdal's and the World Health Organization's (WHO) gender-neutral definitions of violence, and this implies that Machofabriken 2.0 departs from medical and psychological discourses.

The problem with departing from the psychological or medical discourses is that violent men are constructed as deviant and, therefore, can be treated (Wendt 2002). It silences the possibility to approach men as criminals and women as victims of crime and the opportunity to approach ordinary men as violent. It also quiets the dynamics between men and women.

Gender-neutrality is known to cause gender blindness (Walby et 2017, Weedon 1997).

Definitions in Machofabriken are both gender-neutral (participants, people, humans, students) and gender-specific (boys, men). But also abstract articulations of masculinities and destructive male norms and it creates the impression that Machofabriken also works with women and girls.

As if Machofabriken's knowledge production will create change for women, through helping boys, putting into words, the expectation that exists on men and these norms and expectations, participants, regardless of gender, together problematize how norms and expectations restrict boys and men.

Sexual violence does not have its heading in the theory section. Instead, sexual violence is connected to consent and free will, other grounds for discriminations or collectively sanctioned violence. García-Moreno et al. (2015) stress the importance of seeing sexual violence as one dimension of gendered violence and as caused by complex individual, relational and societal factors. Hearn et al. (2012) illuminate how sexual violence is often positioned in a second position, the subtext of sexual violence. I agree with the importance of avoiding to hide sexual violence, victims, and perpetrators in this way and also coincides with the stress of gendering the victim and the perpetrator, harms, and injuries inflicted on the victim and motivations of the perpetrator (Walby et al. 2017).

Articulations of sexual violence are both gender-specific and gender-neutral in Machofabriken.

Statistics of sexual violence are presented briefly in power points and names the perpetrator as male and the victim as female. But when talking about violence in exercises, articulations are gender-neutral: people react differently, being subjected to sexualized violence (page 88) when it

is well known that women and girls are exposed to sexual violence. Machofabriken, in this way, hides men as perpetrators of sexual abuse even if statistics are gender-specific. Mixing gender- specific and gender-neutral blurs the picture and hides both the victim and the perpetrator.

Departing from the concept of gendered violence enables challenging the binary men/women and, in this way, include other genders and sexualities. But without taking away the importance of focus on the most common perpetrator and the most frequent victim but at the same time enables us to also talk about men and other genders as victims of gendered violence. Gender neutrality shall be avoided when addressing gendered violence (Walby et al. 2017).

Machofabrikens gender-neutral articulations, silence, and exclude other definitions of violence and understandings of violence as a violation of women’s human rights and the criminal aspect of men’s violence, and it is not possible to understand who is doing what to whom (Boyle 2018).

Machofabriken have rules at the beginning of each session. These rules are intended to create security but also to create the conditions for the participants to dare to:

openly discuss difficult things and encourage each other to talk. It takes confidence and practice, to dare to reflect openly, to reason about sensitive questions or dare to put words on one's own feelings or experiences (page 44).

Sharing personal experience is problematic, especially using participant's experiences of sexual violence; thus, victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse might be classmates. Machofabriken 2.0 recognizes that participants might be victims and perpetrators of violencee;

Consider that there may be participants in the group who have been exposed to abuse, subjected others or been passive bystanders (page 83).

But, at the same time, Machofabriken encourage sharing of experiences in safe spaces:

It is important that the rules are followed by all participants, as it is a prerequisite for creating a safe room and for the participants to share their experiences and feelings (page 42).

To only take a personal reflective position is problematic. It is possible to consider both a structural perspective and an individual perspective. Analyze patterns, maybe with support from Women's Human Rights. Situate violence as a structural problem. Talk about harms and injures on a more general level. To illuminate how women are restricted and to encourage women to protect themselves and provide women with knowledge of master suppression techniques and explain and examine patterns of oppression and, most importantly, how to counteract master suppression techniques. Imagine the power of a group of girls, with knowledge about Women's Human Rights, and basic understandings of oppression. This had been possible if Machofabriken had to connected violence to structures instead of morals, empathy, and understanding. Empathy,

in this setting, is a patriarchal position, a superior position to encourage men to feel empathy for a subordinated and invisible character, instead of seeing women as equals.

The focus of emotions and how participants are encouraged to reflect on violence, consent, and empathy, indicates that Machofabriken is departing from a humanist and liberal understanding of the individual having an inner core (Weedon 1997) where knowledge and change come from within individuals. And it also indicates that Machofabriken is departing from the Western male emotion regime (Gottzen 2019) and the myth of men's lack of access to their feelings. Reflections around masculine norms and how men are affected enables solutions for individual change and creates opportunities for boys to individually reflect and feel and search for knowledge, moral standards, feelings, and empathy for others and themselves.

Gibbs et al. (2015) argue that such pedagogic approaches, disconnected from structural power relations in the broader societal dimension, have few opportunities for social change. Inequalities and power structures produce norms and therefore, cannot be left out when ending men's violence against women and work for gender equality. This thesis has identified different discourses in the knowledge production of violence prevention in Machofabriken; Psychological and medical discourses, Western male emotion regime, Gender-neutral, and individual humanist discourses, Masculinity discourses, and together they form the foundation for how to approach men, reach gender equality, and end violence. And silence other ways to work for change.

5.3 Supportive, invisible women and bystanders

The intense focus on destructive masculinities, male norms, and young men in Machofabriken affects the possibility of problematizing femininity norms and expectations, the binary man/women, and the dynamics between them. Women and girls are only visually represented in two of Machofabriken's sixteen short movies. In Garageband, which is the only movie where a woman is allowed to speak, Emma is represented as angry but without a real agency. The anger only leads to passivity and after the short movie, showing how Emma is excluded through sexist speech and attention and the most important to think about is according to Machofabriken:

Being excluded is not always intentional - sometimes we make it difficult for others to participate and to feel welcome without thinking about it. This is because, often we do things based on ourselves, our experiences, rather than thinking of others. In the same way, you can sometimes feel that you are unwelcome in some contexts without someone actively shutting you out (page 67).

In this way, Machofabriken directs attention to men and emotions. And the articulation, how exclusions seldom are intentional, silence, and ignore the treatment of Emma. And likewise, how

excluded people, only, may have a feeling of being excluded, is to trivialize how Emma is treated and also hides how power structures produce differences between men and women.

Machofabriken, in this way, enables an individual and male-only focus and silencing other possible solutions for how women can understand and counteract master suppression techniques.

And exercises to enable agency for girls are not put forward in Machofabriken.

Berith Åhs' theory of Master suppression Techniques is mentioned in Machofabriken's theory section (page 39). Still, it is only used as a tool to describe how male norms restrict men—hiding the original meaning of the theory, how women can identify, counteract, and resist male master suppression techniques. Therefore, Machofabriken's way of using Master suppression techniques enables the male-only focus and leaves women without the agency, which the theory can

produce. According to McCarry (2007), hiding individual feminist theorists or chose one approach is common in some masculinity studies, and this seems to be the case in

Machofanriken. And the theory is used to fit the male norm agenda, and focus is shifted, but it is not transparent in the theory section.

Women are produced in problematic ways in Machofabriken, and available subject positions are the supportive, angry, passive, invisible victim of sexual violence. And I argue that underpinning assumptions of men and women in Machofabriken is departing from traditional patriarchal divide man/woman, constructed as opposites. In which men are active and rational, and women are passive and emotional. And therefore, Machofabriken is reproducing this binary, and Gibbs et al. (2015) argue that gendered binaries have to be challenged and taken for granted use of the binary men/women might lead to the reproduction of male privilege and unequal power relations. Flood (2015), Myrttinen (2018), and Hearn (2012) argues that a taken for granted view of heterosexuality might lead to the reproduction of male domination rather than change.

Being an active bystander is articulated as an essential strategy to counteract men's violence against women in Machofabriken. This concept also produces a problematic dichotomy of good men/bad men and women and girls as passive, without agency, and instead creates a dependency on protection from good men. Therefore, the bystander approach reinforces the problematic dynamics between men and women and produce a binary between good men and bad men and make it possible to place violence on Other men and (re)produces the "WE" as good Swedish violent free gender-equal (Hearn et al. 2012). Therefore, Machofabriken's approach makes it impossible to approach ordinary men and point out violent practices to take responsibility. In this way, Machofabriken reinforces the patriarchal model of the male hero and the weak women, in need of saving.

The bystander position is also articulated as more important than the victim-perpetrator relation and makes victim and perpetrator less important;

When violence is practiced, one usually talks about victims and perpetrators and whether both can be victims and perpetrators. But to understand, prevent or fight violence, it is almost always insufficient to just ascertain who is committing violence and who is being subjected to it, because violence is very rarely practiced in a vacuum. It is important to see the role of the bystander (page 30).

This focus of attention, on the perpetrator/victim relation, to articulate the active bystander as the most crucial position, works to shift focus from men’s violent acts and the victim to the

bystander, is to hide the most critical conflict and problem (Walby et al. 2017), behind a male hero position and to articulate this position as the most important position

5.4 Men as victims

Men in Machofabriken, are produced as lacking knowledge about violence (young boys in particular). And the consequence of this weak understanding of violence, is according to Machofabriken, that boys do not see themselves as worthy of protection. In everyday life, this becomes a part of destructive male norms (page 27). Therefore, man as victims and destructive masculinity norms is not possible to separate, and unequal gender power relations, women and girls and injuries and harms caused by men’s sexual violence are not problematized. No articulations about women’s knowledge about violence, as if women already are knowers.

Machofabriken also produces a specific way to approach young men and appeal to young men as vulnerable, articulated through instructions to the leader. The leader is instructed to guide and to assist self-reflective processes and not "primarily to transfer knowledge" (page 11). The leader is also notified not to judge or evaluate participants' reflections or opinions. It is "the participants are the experts on their everyday lives, and this view should also be the starting point for all lessons" (page 15).

Machofabriken's approach is to locate knowledge and change inside the individual. Learning about social constructions, violence and gender, power structures, and inequalities is not something existing inside people, waiting to be uncovered through individual reflections.

Pedagogy can be an instrument for social change and to understand power structures and

inequalities is a complex process and, it is not enough with only personal thoughts. Learning is a complex and relational process and never goes on only inside individuals. Reflections are

essential, but reflections are relational, and connections to knowledge(s) about how society, power structures, and inequalities work are crucial for social change to come about.

Machofabriken also stresses the importance of distinguishing between individual expectations and society's expectations;

As a leader it is important to not tell boys how to act, but about what expectations and norms exist (page 53). The purpose is not to look for faults in individual boys and men, but together problematize destructive expectations and norms (page57).

In this way, Machofabriken is producing young men as lacking knowledge and experts on their own lives, innocent and vulnerable, and must be approached both with care. McCarry (2007) highlights how the concept of masculinity risk of producing men as victims of gender power structures and how the concept of masculinity produces abstract, disembodied men and, in this way, produces a distance between actual men and the abstract concept masculinity.

Further, young men are not only produced as victims but also as autonomous, independent, and free and can counteract society's expectations through individual choices. And how men are constructed in relation to what he is not, is silenced. In the short movie On the floor, male norms and

expectations are forced onto individual men and symbolized through boxes with different masculinity traits, thrown at the young men. And the focus is on how single men are negatively affected by these (from society) forced male norms and expectations. Exercises in connection to the movie, encourage men to choose what traits he finds appropriate.

Machofabriken's solution to encourage individual men to individually choose and change what traits to use and, in this way, be allowed to feel and become a better man, can be understood as departing from the liberal-humanist individual subject (autonomous, free, and universal individual).

Knowledge about the world is situated inside him. Feminist post-structural theory (Weedon 1987) and Discourse Theory (Jørgensen & Phillip's 2002) reject the notion of the individual having an inner core. Instead, the individual is understood as discursively produced, involving processes of

identification with something else.

Machofabriken’s way of producing men as victims might also be a result of the problem of

approaching the good Swedish gender-equal man as violent and redirect violence. Gottzen (2019) has described this resistance of pointing out ordinary Swedish men as violent with the help of Kristeva’s concept abject; it transcends the boundary between horrible deviants and ordinary Swedish men of equality. Lundgren et al (2001) also pointed out this problem and was met with anger and resistance (Wendt 2012).

The Master signifier in Machofabriken - young men - are discursively produced through the model triad of men's violence and the concept masculinities through chains of equivalence (Jörgensen & Phillips 2011) - autonomous and free, innocent-vulnerable-lacking knowledge but the expert of his life, insecure, not worthy of protection, no contact with emotions – he becomes untouchable. Several ways to avoid responsibility is produced. Either he knows everything, or he

knows nothing. In Machofabriken's language, they have built a wall around him. He becomes untouchable. The Master signifier in Machofabriken is a man and refers to the nodal point of identity and is filled with a different meaning in different discourses and is relationally produced, and the category boy/men are constructed in relation to what he is not (Jørgensen & Phillip's 2002). This is why it important to challenge the binary man/woman, where man is constructed in relation to the negative Other (women).

5.5 Men as victims in Swedish gender equality discourse The Swedish gender equality goal and sub-target no 6; men's violence against women and the involvement of boys and men in the work of preventing that violence, is radical in its formulation and might give the impression that it is now possible to approach ordinary men as violent, which have been impossible before. However, the examination of when, violence prevention, young men and destructive masculinities emerged, shows that the concepts men’s violence against women and gender equality, might have been co-opted by male-to-male violence and young men’s violence in suburbs (juvenile-crime and the prevention of juvenile-violence), which means young men's violence in other contexts and other relations than men-female and destructive male norms as the root cause of men’s violence instead of unequal gender relations. Focus might have shifted and the concept of jämställdhet and the idea that men are allies to women in the struggle for gender equality, might have a male focus.

This thesis argues that a destructive male-norm discourse emerged around 2007 and the starting point might have been when the minister of Gender Equality and Integration, commissioned the National Board of Youth an educational assignment regarding violence prevention, masculinities and young men (IJ2007/2250/UNG) and close collaboration between MUCF, MÄN and

UNIZON emerged and the importance of seeing young men as victims were articulated. But also, placing violence and destructive male norms situated in lower social groups and young men’s violence in suburbs. This produces a good man/bad man dichotomy where young men in suburbs are the ones with destructive masculinities and hides the ordinary Swedish violent man.

Articulations of men as victims are also found in documents produced by SKR (Sveriges kommuner och Regioner) and also highlighting treatment, as the way for men to take

responsibility for violence against women (Weiss 2019). This means that men as victims and men as deviant might form the foundation for the organization SKR’s work with violence against women and prevention. SKR organize all municipalities and regions in Sweden and therefore have impact on how the everyday work with men’s violence against women.

I understand this as discursive processes of knowledge and power in which a certain way to explain men’s violence has been stabilized and is seen as the way to perform violence prevention within the Swedish gender equality discourse and other explanations of violence are excluded in

order to create a closure and a hegemonic discourse on masculinities, male norms and violence prevention and other explanations are positioned outside, in the discursive field (Jörgensen &

Phillips 2011). Excluded in the discursive field is Feminist Theory, Critical Masculinity Studies on violence and Women’s Human Rights, and the root cause defined as unequal gender power relations and stereotypical gender roles. This thesis suggests that this development has its roots in the struggle over meaning and has developed in close collaborations between authorities and the NGO's MÄN and UNIZON, regarding violence prevention, masculinities, and young men.

5.6 Stories about sexual harassment, rape, victims and bystanders

In this section, I will discuss the three short movies; Real-Life, Ice-Cream, and Step-up. All three films are about sexual violence, women’s bodies, and men’s access to them. First, I will briefly introduce the concept of Man Box, followed by a presentation of the three short movies. After the presentation of the short movies. I will summarize the short movies and the Man Box as follows:

a) Sexual violence, Men as victims, and invisible women. b) Short movies and the Man BoxTranscriptions of the dialogs in the short movies are presented in the appendix (page X).

The Man Box

The intense focus on destructive male norms runs through the program. It is symbolized through the concept Man Box, which, besides the sixteen short movies, is the essential pedagogic tool in Machofabriken, and the purpose is to help participants put into words what expectations,

limitations, benefits, and disadvantages come with masculinity. In the short movies, the Man Box symbolizes when individual men stay within the Man box and when he steps outside and maybe, inside again, or with one foot inside and one out (the struggle and dangers for a boy to try to step outside the Man Box). The Man Box is a symbol of destructive male norms and produces a dichotomy between good man/bad man. It is the destructive man Machofabriken wants to change and redefine so that a new Good Man is possible. Hearn et al. (2012) have pointed out this problem with male norm changing violence prevention programs, how it locates badness and violence on Other men, and how this does not change gender power structures. It only creates we/them dichotomy, which hides normal Swedish men’s violence. The concept of Tropes represents stereotypes in the analysis.

Real life

Real-life is a story of sexual harassment, male group pressure, and bystanders as a solution for ending sexual harassment. Two "cool" young men are sexually harassing Jasmine and nagging

their friend Jonathan, more shy, young men. The purpose of the theme is to reflect on how sexual harassment affects victims of sexual harassment, why people inflict sexual harassment on others, and how one can act as a bystander.

Jonathan is constructed as the Innocent Male Trope and, as a victim of male peer pressure and the other young men, are constructed as “cool” and “macho” and constructed as the Destructive Male Tropes. Individual moves inside-out the Man Box, symbolizes how the innocent man can be an active bystander but also how destructive male trope might want to listen to the bystander (good man). In this way, Real life and the Man box, produces two different subject positions for young men, Innocent male trope and Destructive male trope and a dichotomy of good man/bad man.

The destructive men are nagging Jonathan around a familiar theme among young people, both boys and girls, the question of being a virgin or not. In this way, Jonathan is produced as a victim of peer nagging.

Jasmine is an "invisible" victim of sexual harassment. Jasmine is referred to in very rough and dehumanizing ways when subjected to sexual harassment, and the short movie builds its story around the sexual harassment of Jasmine. At the same time, Jasmine represents all girls and women who are sexually harassed and exposed to men's sexual violence, but this reality is hidden and silenced. The solution to ending sexual harassment is the bystander approach. The

consequence is girls as invisible but crucial victims position of sexual abuse. Machofabriken offers her an active bystander. And Jasmine is not given agency. Sexual harassments are repeated twice in the short movie;

Jasmine! If you want to be licked between your legs, you can call this boy! Jasmine, Jonathan gives everything you want! By the way Jasmine, is the butt in real life or have you photoshoped the picture? Yes, come over here and show the butt! Don't go! Come here instead. Come on!

Jasmine hello! (machofabriken.se).

The second time these words are spoken, a shift occurs, and close up pictures on the boy's faces and lips, articulating and repeating the sexist comments. The same sexist articulations, but with even more focus and strength because of the close-up pictures:

Jasmine! If you want to be licked between your legs, then you can call this guy and point to Jonathan. He gives you everything you want! By the way Jasmine, is the butt in real life or have you photoshoped the picture? Come and sit down so we can touch your butt! (machofabriken.se) These repeated and degrading articulations are very problematic, mainly because they are

occurring in a violence prevention program directed toward boys and girls in the ages between 13-25. When comparing the sexist and degrading articulations in Real life with definitions of sexual harassment in the Istanbul convention, and the dialogues in Real Life might be a violation of the Istanbul convention:

Any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person particular when creating intimidating, hostile,

degrading, humiliating or offensive environment (Article 40).

According to Machofabriken, there are two victims in Real life;

Jasmine is a victim of sexual harassment and Jonathan is a witness of sexual harassment and at the same time he is the victim of his friends' attempts to create a hierarchy between them through ridicule him and points at his lack of sexual experience (page 85).

In this way, Machofabriken is shifting the focus from men’s sexual harassment to men’s position as a victim of male peer nagging. And the most important victim is Jonathan and his victim position concerning male friends. And attention of sexual harassment is made less critical and is not problematized. Instead, Machofabriken constructs men as victims and therefore, cannot be held responsible for their violence. This shift is made possible through redefinition and

transforming the victim position (Strindlund & Wig 2016) in Real life, which produces men as the real victim of men’s violence. The treatment of Jonathan and Jasmine, enables a position for the innocent man, to speak up against the destructive men and take the bystander position.

However, Jonathan is too shy and insecure and needs training to become an active bystander, and Real-life conveys that it takes courage to counteract and call out these destructive men. In Real life, when Jonathan is speaking out, it is just something going on in his head.

Being an active bystander is put forward as a solution for ending sexual harassment. This solution in Machofabriken, means reproducing women as passive and in need of protection and (some) men as heroes and other men as violent. It creates an even deeper dependency, and there is no space for women to protect themselves. Women being free of violence, is depending on Good men protecting them from Bad men. In this way, responsibility for violence shifts to the

bystander, and the perpetrator is not responsible. It is the bystander that will end violence. In this way, men can be constructed as heroes and saviors and women as passive, waiting to be saved by the bystander. And therefore, women are created without any agency.

Ice cream

The purpose in Ice-cream is reflections on consent, free will, and masculinities with the intent to practice empathy and understanding and reflection of being an active bystander. The younger brother is accused of sexually abusing Hanna, and the older brother has been defending him. The younger brother (offender) is represented as the Innocent male trope, lacking knowledge and understanding of interactions between people in sexual situations. The older brother can also be understood as Innocent Male trope, and his move outside the Man Box occurs when he is

emotionally upset for mistakenly have been defending his younger brother. The older brother did