In this article, we report on a study that investigated the motives, interests, and positions of a number of participants in the field of social work and projects for men and equality in contemporary Swedish society. The material used was collected from an evaluation of a number of social projects in Swedish civil society that focused on men and boys. The common goal in these projects is to develop methods and tools that are usable in social work with men and boys. In the article, we will highlight eight of the projects included in the evaluation. The points of departure for these projects are often an agenda putting forward a problematic masculinity and focusing on men at risk of either harming themselves or others. The various social work projects use two different approaches to social work with men and boys. A number of projects tend to lean on “traditional” images of gender, using a compensatory approach to gender and society. Other projects are clearly inspired by a feminist movement among men and lean on a norm critical tradition with influences from, for instance, Judith Butler’s work. The results of the study call for a discussion of how social and economic conditions affect the understanding of masculinity. If the goal is to deconstruct homogenous gender categories, we have to emphasize the variety of gender constructions, identities, and power relations.
BanguraAM (2003) Ifrågasatta fäder: Olika bilder av fäder till socialt utsatta barn, Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet.
2.
Bodén L (2011) Könsneutralitet och kompensatorisk pedagogik. Dominerande föreställningar i förskolans jämställdhetsarbete. In: Taguchi HL, Bodén L and Ohrlander K (eds) En rosa pedagogik—jämställdhetspedagogiska utmaningar. Stockholm: Liber, pp. 35–47.
3.
BromsethJ (2009) Learning the straight script—Constructings of queer and heterosexual bodies in Swedish schools’. In: BromsethJKäll FolkmarsonLMattssonK (eds) Body Claims, Sweden, Uppsala, Uppsala Universitet: Skrifter från genusvetenskap.
4.
BromsethJDarjF (2010) Normkritisk pedagogik. Makt, lärande och strategier för förändring, Sweden, Uppsala, Uppsala Universitet: Skrifter från genusvetenskap.
5.
ButlerJ (1990/2008) Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London: Routledge.
6.
ButlerJ (2005) Undoing Gender, London: Routledge.
7.
ClandininDJ (2007) Handbook of Narrative Inquiry. Mapping a Methodology, London: SAGE.
8.
ClarkeV (2006) Gay men, gay men and more gay men: Traditional, liberal and critical perspectives on male role models in lesbian families. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review7(1): 19–35.
Daiute C and Lightfoot C (eds) (2004) Narrative Analysis. Studying the Development of Individuals in Society. London: SAGE.
11.
DolkK (2011) Genuspedagogiskt trubbel. Från en kompensatorisk till en komplicerande och normkritisk genuspedagogik. In: TaguchiHLBodénLOhrlanderK (eds) En rosa pedagogik—jämställdhetspedagogiska utmaningar, Stockholm: Liber.
12.
DominelliL (2002) Feminist Social Work Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
13.
ErikssonM (2003) I skuggan av pappa. Familjerätten och hanteringen av fäders våld, Stehag: Förlaget AB Gondolin.
14.
GringeriCEWahabSAnderson-NatheB (2010) What makes it feminist? Mapping the landscape of feminist social work research. Affilia25(4): 390–405.
15.
HerzM (2012) Från ideal till ideologi. Konstruktioner av kön och etnicitet inom socialtjänsten, Örebro: Örebro University.
16.
HerzMJohanssonT (2011) Maskuliniteter. Kritik, tendenser, trender, Malmö: Liber förlag.
17.
HerzMJohanssonT (2012a) Critical social work—Considerations and suggestions. Critical Social Work12: 28–45.
18.
HerzMJohanssonT (2012b) ‘Doing’ social work: Critical considerations on theory and practice in social work. Advances in Social Work13(3): 527–540.
19.
Hicks S (2001) Men social workers in children’s services: ‘Will the real man please stand up?' In: Christie A (ed) Men and Social Work: Theories and Practices. Houndmills, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–62.
20.
Hicks S (2008) Gender role models … Who needs’ Em?! Qualitative Social Work 7(1): 43–59.
21.
Hill H (2003) Befria mannen. Försök till ny genusordning? I Johansson, Thomas och Kuosmanen, Jari (red.) Manlighetens många ansikten—fäder, feminister, frisörer och andra män. Malmö: Liber förlag, pp. 46–61.
22.
Hill H (2007) Befria mannen! Idéer om förtryck, frigörelse och förändring hos en svensk mansrörelse under 1970- och tidigt 1980-tal. Stockholm: h:ström.
23.
HolterØG (2007) Män i rörelse. Jämställdhet, förändring och social innovation i Norden, Hedemora: Gidlunds.
24.
HolterØGSvare, Helge ochEgelandC (2009) Gender Equality and Quality of Life. A Norwegian Perspective, Oslo: NIKK.
25.
JohanssonH (2006) Brist på manliga förebilder. Dekonstruktion av en föreställning och dess praktik, Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.
26.
JohanssonTKlinthR (2008) Caring fathers. The ideology of gender equality and masculine positions. Men and Masculinities11(1): 42–62.
27.
Johansson T and Lunneblad J (2012) Män och maskulinitet i rörelse—kris, utveckling och förändring. Stockholm. Allmänna arvsfonden.
28.
Johansson T and Ottemo A (2013) Ruptures in hegemonic masculinity: the dialectic between ideology and Utopia. Journal of Gender Studies. DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2013.812514.
29.
KimmelMS (1996/2006) Manhood in America, New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
KullbergC (2002) Gender and social work. Research on gender differences in the treatment of clients in welfare institutions. In: GruberCStefanovH (eds) Gender in Social Work: Promoting Equality, Lyme Regis: Russel House.
31.
Lenz TH, Bodén L and Ohrlander K (eds) (2011) En rosa pedagogik—jämställdhetspedagogiska utmaningar. Stockholm: Liber.
32.
Martinsson L and Reimers E (eds) (2008) Skola i normer. Malmö: Gleerups.
33.
MattssonT (2005) I viljan att göra det normala. En kritisk studie av genusperspektivet i missbruksvården, Malmö: Égalité.
34.
Möller Å (2010) Den ‘goda’ mångfalden. Fabrikation av mångfald i skolans policy och praktik. (Diversity as a ‘good’ thing.) Utbildning and Demokrati ss. 85–106(1): 19.
35.
MorganP (2002) Children as Trophies?: Examining the Evidence on Same-Sex Parenting, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Christian Institute.
36.
OrmeJ (2003) It’s feminist because I say so! Feminism, social work and critical practice. Qualitative Social Work2(2): 131–153.
37.
PeaseB (2011) Men in social work: Challenging or reproducing an unequal gender regime?Affilia26(4): 406–418.
38.
PhillipsM (1999) The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male, London: The Social Market Foundation.
39.
SangheraGThapar-BjorkertS (2008) Methodological dilemmas: Gatekeepers and positionality in Bradford. Ethnic and Racial Studies31(3): 543–562.
40.
ScourfieldJB (2002) Reflections on gender, knowledge and values in social work. British Journal of Social Work32(1): 1–15.
41.
Skolverket (2009) Diskriminerad, trakasserad, kränkt? Barns, elevers och studerandes uppfattningar om diskriminering och trakasserier. Rapport 326. Stockholm: Fritzes.
42.
SleeterCE (2007) Making Choices for Multicultural Education. Five Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
43.
SpandlerHMcKeownM (2012) A critical exploration using football in health and welfare programs: Gender, masculinities, and social relations. Journal of Sport and Social Issues36(4): 387–409.
44.
WestCZimmermanD (1987) Doing gender. Gender and Society1(2): 112–122.
45.
ZuffereyC (2009) Making gender visible. Social work responses to homelessness. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work24(4): 382–393.
