Blaming and shaming in the shadow structure: individual resistance towards gender equality work as expressions of social conflict

ABSTRACT

This article explores individual resistance related to a military organization’s gender equality work as expressed in online contexts. Resistance is explained as expressions of wider social conflicts, grounded in experiences of threats towards military masculinities, challenged by societal and political transformation processes perceived as feminine. The data consists of defence-related blogs and comments. A thematic analysis finds that individual resistance can be understood as blaming and shaming strategies. Five sub-themes are identified: blaming the “feminised” organization, blaming and shaming women’s abilities to serve, individualisation of structural problems, verbal violence and violations, and objectification of men working with and supporting gender equality initiatives. The analysis exemplifies how social conflict is transferred to organizations through individual resistance. As gender equality policies are questioned, organizations need to confront resistance also within the online context.

KEYWORDS:

• Individual resistance
• gender equality
• military
• shadow structure
• online context

Introduction

During Easter 2021, the Swedish Archbishop, Antje Jackelén, announced that she would close down her Twitter account due to the hatred and threats she received. Jackelén maintained that Twitter was “no longer a meaningful communication channel” for her (Svt 2021). Sweden may be among the highest-ranked countries in the world when it comes to gender equality (European Union 2021) but women across all societal sectors experience hatred and harassment both online and in workplaces—something that was documented in the #metoo movement, which saw calls from most societal sectors in Sweden for awareness and change (Aida Alvinius, Arita Holmberg and Eva Johansson 2019).

Although social conflicts over gendered norms and anti-feminism is central in today’s societal and political debate, research on resistance towards gender equality has most often been confined to organizational contexts (Göran Ahrne and Papakostas Apostolis 2002); political contexts (Christina Bergqvist, Elin Bjarnegård and Zetterberg Pär 2013), or read as a structural phenomenon appearing within organizations as a consequence of changes such as the execution of gender equality decisions (Eva Amundsdotter, Mattias Ericson, Ulrika Jansson, and Sophie Linghag 2015). These approaches overlook the social and individual expressions of conflicts over gender equality and study them as somehow de-personalized in different ideological or organizational contexts and settings. Research shows, however, that societal spheres such as online contexts and media are part of constructing national values (Niall Brennan 2015). This suggests that we may also find conflicts over values in these societal spheres.

We argue that more attention needs to be directed at individual resistance towards gender equality—as it may signal the presence of larger social conflict over the values that constitute the foundation of our society, and organizations will inevitably have to deal also with this resistance. In order to analyse discourses of individual resistance as expressions of social conflict, we need to turn to online contexts, as this is where many current conflicts play out. We focus on resistance in relation to gender equality and the military, as expressed in the online context through defence related blogs. The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of individual resistance as an expression of social conflict. We choose the concept of individual resistance for two reasons: a) the empirical basis in this study is anonymous (gender/sex is unknown to us), b) the resistance to gender equality is an expression of hegemonic masculinity (Raewyn W. Connell 2005). It is reproduced not only by men but also by women. According to this reasoning, individual resistance is, therefore, a relevant term.

The military and its surroundings are a particularly suitable arena to study since conflicts over values are likely to unfold in relation to arenas that embody distinct cultures, such as the military masculinity culture, that are constructed in contrast to a civilian “feminine” (Paul Higate 2012; Ben Wadham 2013). In a national context in which the feminist character of society is increasingly questioned but it is politically incorrect to express such resistance within the military organization, the online context can be expected to constitute an arena in which critics of gender equality in the military can express their opinions. The blogosphere also gives room for emotional expressions (Lori Kido Lopez 2014), which may not be allowed in the military culture. The study’s demarcation is, therefore, expressions of individual resistance on informal online platforms linked to gender norms and issues in a military organization. We focus on Sweden since the country has been identified as characterized by a feminine culture at the societal and political level. This culture is currently under attack, primarily by right-wing populist parties and organizations that have gained increased support during the 2010s.

While gender equality activism and empowerment initiatives have resulted in political and social changes that have become key features of democracy, power struggles have continued in public and organizational contexts (Steven van Baarle, Sharon Dolmans, Annelies Bobelyn, and Georges Romme 2019). Today much activism takes place in an online context. However, the darker side of the Internet is that it constitutes a place for hatred against women and violent resistance against gender equality issues Nicola Henry and Anastasia Powell 2015; Emma Jane 2017; Sofia Strid 2018). A recent study (Sofia Strid 2018) shows that political equality activists, usually individual women, become targets of serious attacks as a consequence of their activism.

How can the presence of individual resistance towards gender equality be theorized? At the highest level of abstraction, a central explanation is the conflict between feminine and masculine societal norms (Ken Clatterbaugh 2018), or cultural dimensions, to use Hofstede’s words (Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede and Minkov Mikael 1991). Multiple processes are also occurring within organizations. On the one hand, organizations are characterized by autonomy and cultural dimensions of their own such as masculinity and femininity norms and dimensions (Geert Hofstede and Mark F. Peterson 2000), and on the other hand, organizations are mirroring national cultures (Robert House, Paul Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta 2004). Military organizations are traditionally male-dominated with strong masculine norms (Judi Addelston and Stirratt Michael 1996; Hannah C. Hale 2012), which have been conceptualized as fratriarchy (Paul Higate 2012; Ben Wadham 2013). In a country like Sweden, with feminine norms (Hofstede et al. 1991), the number of women in the military is slowly increasing (Linehagen Frida 2018). However, despite political decisions on increased gender equality and social goals set up by the Swedish feminist government, the process of changing masculine organizational norms in state authorities are slow. In fact, both the government and other organizations are facing resistance towards gender equality (Strid 2018). To summarize in Strid’s words, “the patriarchy fights back” at all societal levels (Strid 2018). One such level that has received relatively little attention is the online arena. According to Emma Jane (2017), the online platform facilitates misogyny through the possibility to exercise violence, its lack of regulation and the availability of hate communities.

In summary, our theoretical framework moves from the abstract level of societal and political norms and cultures that has been termed feminine and masculine, through the organizational level and the power struggles that take place there, to the individual level, in the online context. It is in the latter where our main contribution lies. We argue that the social conflict continues in the online context at the individual level, and here it is expressed in its most unpolished disguise. Aggression towards women and gender equality at the individual level can be conceptualized as a shadow structure that is bound to affect the organizational and societal/political level sooner or later. The theoretical framework will be further developed below. However, we briefly need to address the specific empirical context of the analysis.

Resistance in the military arena has been studied using different methods and theoretical perspectives. For example, studies have situated resistance in leadership contexts (Alvinius et al. 2019) or focused on women’s resistance towards sexual harassment (Alvinius et al. 2019), as well as soldiers’ refusal to fight, or resistance demonstrated in the organizational inability to carry out armed combat. However, individual resistance to gender equality issues in military contexts has received less attention. According to some researchers, strict military ethics should inhibit unethical behaviour and resistance against political direction and control (John Bennett 2017). However, there is overwhelming support against this standpoint, revealing major problems in military organizations (Judi Addelston and Stirratt Michael 1996; Bonnes 2017; Hannah C. Hale 2012) that can be interpreted as resistance. The fratriarchic culture (Ben Wadham 2013) of the military holds a complex relationship to the civilian sphere and the values that it is supposed to protect. Consequently, we can assume that for the military to express resistance towards human rights or specific issues such as gender equality is very much a taboo subject. For instance, the Swedish military depicts itself as a defender of values and human rights (Sanna Strand and Kehl Katarina 2018), which can be seen as a form of mirroring of political and societal values in that country. At the same time, the military culture feeds from distinguishing itself from its civilian feminine other (Ben Wadham 2013). As John Lowe (2019) argues, this culture allows military men to pursue military values also in social settings outside of the military.

In order to analyse this tension and search for resistance, we turn to the online context. There is no lack of domains here as military organisations have their own social media through which they control the outflow of information (Nigel Jones and Baines Paul 2013). However, the informal element of the online context, such as defence-related blogs in which civilian individuals, as well as organizational members, express opinions on the military organization, defence and security in blogs and blog comment fields, are largely scientifically unexamined.

Theoretical framework

According to Gerard Hendrik Hofstede and Willem Arrindell (1998) norms coded as feminine and masculine affect psychological, sociological and, in our opinion, political processes within societies. Masculine and feminine norms have deep historical roots (Hofstede et al. 1998). Characteristics of masculine norms in society are that men, but not women, are encouraged to be tough, assertive, focused on material success and to strive for ego goals. Characteristics of norms coded as feminine in societies such as the Scandinavian countries are that both women and men are supposed to be modest, tender and soft (Hofstede et al. 1991). Welfare, care for citizens and nature are social goals that are highly valued in societies with a low masculinity (or high femininity) index (Hofstede et al. 1991, 1998).

Societies characterized by norms coded as feminine can spur resistance in men. Connell has discussed the general causes of men’s resistance to gender equality and has come to the following conclusion; the patriarchal order previously granted men benefits precisely because of gender differences—being bereft of these benefits cause resistance. In a family setting, the patriarchal order assumes/expects care and household service from women, which is at the forefront of the issue of gender equality. In addition, resistance emerges together with identity dilemmas linked to masculinity. For instance, the man is expected to be the strong, family provider and all attempts at complete equality and women’s advancement in the public and private spheres threaten the prevailing masculine norm (Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff Hearn and Raewyn W. Connell 2004; Jeff Hearn 2011). Power and identity are thus central explanations for the emergence of resistance.

In an organizational context, individual resistance can be directed, for example, against the implementation of gender equality policies. Individual opposition to organizational change can be attributed to a number of causes (Dennis G. Erwin and Andrew N. Garman 2010); a) the necessity of changing habits may raise opposition, b) people need security and if this is threatened, opposition emerges, c) financial factors, d) fear of the unknown and uncertainty can lead to opposition, and finally, e) selective information processing; individuals form their worldview through the processing of information. When our view of the world outside meets some form of anomaly, opposition is created. Filtering information, ignorance and distortion are just some of the tools that members of an organization use to manifest opposition (Gerry Larsson, Misa Sjöberg, Aida Alvinius and Torsten Björkman 2005). In addition to the above, van Baarle et al. (2019) have shown that power is an essential element of tension in relation to empowerment initiatives (gender equality can be seen as an empowerment initiative). Relational conflicts cause opposition but so do conflicts between power structures within organizations.

Turning to the online context, resistance towards gender equality has been conceptualized as narratives of misogyny. These can be seen as expressions of toxic hypermasculinity which according to Terry Kupers, “involves the need to aggressively compete and dominate others” (Terry A. Kupers 2005, 713). Online anti-feminism has been expressed in militaristic language (Jessica O’Donnell 2020), which suggests that the traditional norms and masculinity of the military are idealized in these social spaces. The level of hatred and violence directed towards women on the internet is much higher than hatred and violence directed at men (Jane 2017, 17). Jane (2017, 43) explains the strong presence of misogyny on the internet through first, men’s structural power advantage is upheld by various forms of violence, also online, second, the character of the cybersphere allows men to exercise misogyny. Anonymity and lack of effective regulation online are facilitators of this exercise, as is the ability to find communities of hatred in which to let opinions flourish. Jane states that “discourse in the cybersphere can be used as a litmus test of the sort of community attitudes that exist below the surface but that are no longer considered acceptable to express in ‘polite’ company.” (Jane 2017, 44). The concept of discursive aggression has been used to illustrate how individuals are controlled in social interaction, and how pressure is placed upon them to conform to expectations (Stef M. Shuster 2017). This concept could be used to analyse the behaviour and language of individuals commenting on defence-related blogs. In this interpretation, aggression towards women is a way of trying to defend the traditional social structure of the military, with hyper-masculine norms and culture of the military organization from gender equality reforms and women.

Organizational shadow structures have been studied in order to understand the informal side of organizational life and behavior (M. Gail McGuire 2002; Rosabeth Moss Kanter 1977). The definition according to Kanter includes building alliances between organizational members, trading organizational resources and managing reputations. McGuire adds that shadow structures have another dimension, which includes the unspoken rules between men that serve to obstruct gender equality and make the organization highly resistant to change (M. Gail McGuire 2002). We argue that as such, shadow structures can be seen as embodying social conflict, and more attention should be directed at its individual expression. Social conflicts are bound to unfold also in organizations. In the context of the hyper-masculine military organization, a parallel, informal shadow structure can be identified in defence-related blogs and comments. Here, frustration over organizational transformation with gender equality as a goal is channeled anonymously through an online context. Even if the political correctness of the military organization and the goal of gender equality is maintained, individual resistance towards gender equality can be found in the shadows and margins of the organization (John Lowe 2019; compare Ben Wadham 2013). Therefore, attention needs to be directed at these spheres.

Study context and methods

Sweden ranks number one on the EU’s Gender Equality Index 2020 (European Union 2021). The index measures 31 indicators. The Swedish governments’ aims are inclusive policies in which human rights and equal opportunities are central. This is expressed also in Sweden’s feminist foreign policy (Swedish Government 2020). An Anti-discrimination Act adopted in 2009 prohibits discrimination due to gender, transgender identity or expression, ethnicity, religion or other beliefs, disability, sexual preference and age (Swedish Law 2008). Regarding women in the armed forces, only in 1989 were all positions in the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) opened up to female recruits. The SAF is still one of the most gender-segregated workplaces in Sweden (Swedish Armed Forces 2021a).

Recruitment has been a problem for the military in Sweden, and the SAF has had to shift between different systems of personnel supply. The conscription system was ended in 2010, but an all-volunteer, professional system could not turn the negative recruitment trend, and 2018 saw the rebirth of conscription in combination with volunteers. Only at this point was conscription made gender-neutral. The issue of female conscription had been debated since the 1960s, but it has taken longer to materialise. Gradually women were allowed to join the armed forces voluntarily (Swedish Armed Forces 2021a). Female conscripts made up 15.5% of the total number of conscripts in 2018 (a total of 3,700 conscripts). In the same year, 7% of the SAF’s military personnel and 40% of its civilian personnel were female. Among all continuously serving personnel (military and civilian) there were 18% women (a total of about 22,000) (Swedish Armed Forces 2019). The percentage of female conscripts have increased by about 1% each year since 2018 (Swedish Armed Forces 2021b). Thus, when it comes to the military context, Sweden does not have a particularly inclusive record, at least with respect to the participation of women.

The analysis of the Swedish military context is based on a selection of popular public, armed forces and society-related blogs. Both blog posts and comments to blog posts were studied through an inductive, explorative approach. Data were collected between September and November 2018 and stretches over the period 2008–2017. The selected time period includes newer and older blog posts and commentaries. A consequence of this is that the topic of resistance is very common and available over time for a broad audience. Based on our knowledge of the defence debate in Sweden, we include nine popular blogs that were deemed to be related to defence and security. All but one (the blog provided by the Swedish Armed Forces) were informal in the sense that they were produced by non-government actors, who were mostly individuals with high interest in and knowledge of the Swedish military. These blogs can be considered influential channels for discussion and debate concerning defence and security, in particular among the Swedish defence community including people who either are or have been employed by the Swedish Armed Forces, people who work in the defence- and security related sector or are just specifically interested in defence issues. We assume that the bloggers’ aims are to voice their opinions, spur debate and influence political discussions through their blog posts. All of them allow the blog to be indexed for a search engine, and they offer readers RSS feeds. The blogs provide the option for reader comments and none of them requires a password. However, as publications on the Internet are not primarily written for academic analysis, the use of blog entries may entail an infringement of personal privacy (Robert Kozinets 2011). It is desirable to keep updated with the ethical concepts applicable to blog analysis, as the area is very complex (Kozinets 2011). It is difficult to decide who owns the right to the information in a blog. Obtaining informed consent in an online community is also complicated (Kozinets 2011, 195–196). When making use of material downloaded from the Internet, we must respect copyright, protect individuals and maintain a clear idea of what is private and what is public in the communities, to name just a few of the problematic issues.

Due to the opinion-generated nature of the blogs, we have not considered it necessary to request consent (Amy Bruckman 2002; Linda A. Eastham 2011). Blog post comments were already anonymous during data collection and it is unknown to us if the commentators to blog posts are men or women. Blogs will be referred to as blog 1, post 1, comment 1 etcetera. The fact that the citations have been translated from Swedish to English by the authors constitute a second barrier against identifying the bloggers.

Blogs are used to target narratives of resistance towards gender equality. The following search words were used in order to identify relevant data: gender, gender equality, woman, masculinity, femininity, sexual harassment, #metoo, #givaktochbitihop [#standtoattentionandsuckitup] (the hashtag for the Swedish military-related metoo call). Articles and posts using one or more of the above search words/keywords were examined to determine if the article/post was relevant. Thematic analysis was used in which the focus was on identifying patterns (themes) in the data and providing rich descriptions of them (Virginia Braun and Clarke Victoria 2006).

The first step of the analysis consisted of open coding, which means identifying meaningful units (codes) in each individual blog entry and accompanying comments. This could, for example, be a case of particular thought patterns, feelings or events related to the keywords of the study, such as gender, sex, women etc. One example of a code is given below:

At least the Swedish troops will be able to clutch the Gender Handbook tightly, conveniently stored in the same place as the Armed Forces core values (Blog post, blog no 9)

This blogpost combined with a number of others of similar content was coded as “Replace combat tasks with the Gender Handbook”. Step two consisted of assessing and then sorting codes of similar meaning into categories. In the example, the code “Replace combat tasks with the Gender Handbook” was sorted in the category “focus on gender training”. The category “focus on gender training” was sorted under the common, general category or theme Blaming the organization. The third step of the thematic analysis included comparisons between themes, categories and codes, which finally resulted in a detailed description associated with the quote.

Blaming and shaming military women (and men)

The thematic analysis of blog posts and related comments shows that resistance to gender equality can be understood as emotional expressions, primarily as blaming and shaming strategies. One theoretical explanation for the occurrence of this kind of resistance could be that women are not associated with markers of combat (Melissa Brown 2012), and if they were it could destabilise the process of transforming boys into men and men into soldiers. The strategy of blaming and shaming women, and some men, is about preserving access to power for only hypermasculine men (Andrea N. Goldstein 2018). As noted in the introduction, military culture has also been characterized as a fratriarchy that distances itself from the civilian, feminine culture (Paul Higate 2012; Ben Wadham 2013). For these reasons, blame and shame take different expressions empirically, and are aimed at women, men and the military organisation’s value work, or in our interpretation, resistance to the perceived “feminisation” of the last “bastion of masculinity” (cf. Judi Addelston and Stirratt Michael 1996). Five sub-themes that support the above analysis have been identified a) blaming the “feminised” organization, b) blaming and identifying women as the problem, c) individualisation of structural problems, d) verbal violence and violations, and e) objectification of men who work with gender equality. It should be added that all blog posts included in the sample for analysis were within the limits of what can be expected of a writer who maintains a good tone. However, the subsequent debate in the comments section of the various blog posts was occasionally merely negative and sometimes grossly offensive. We will illustrate in more detail.

Blaming the feminised organization

Blaming the military organization seems to be a common feature of the selected military-related blogs. Criticism is directed at the organizational focus on gender equality issues and the recruitment of women is considered to have taken an excessive extent. These blaming strategies target the “feminisation of the organization” and place gender-based power and status at the forefront (cf. Margreth Nordgren 2000). The entire military organization is accused of not focusing on combat tasks, which is assumed to result in defective defence capabilities. Since the military organization has historically played a nurturing role towards men whose social duty was to “protect” the motherland, women and children, the task and institution have also been strongly linked to masculinity (Melissa Brown 2007; Raewyn W. Connell 2005). These norms have been reproduced over time (Joshua S. Goldstein 2001), which means that gender equality work that includes women and equates them with men in the military organization constitutes a challenge and causes resistance. Here is one of many examples of blaming the military organization:

The wonderful gender-correct Swedish Armed Forces, whose gender-aware operators now can defeat the enemy meanwhile Swedish troops and civilians are inundated with cluster bombs and remote-controlled antipersonnel mines. Confronted with a remote attack, the Swedish defence forces will now turn to the new Gender Handbook, which is thicker than the Security Protection Act. (Blog post, blog nr 9)

Through the usage of irony in the above citation, it is very clear that the Swedish Armed Forces gender equality work (which is regulated by instruction from the Government) is seen as threatening the traditional role of the military. The citation expresses resistance towards this development and positions itself in opposition to the feminisation of the Swedish society in general and the military in particular. Expressing similar findings, Jarrod Pendlebury 2020 highlights that despite technological evolution within the military organization, the classical model of heroic masculinity is still desirable.

Blaming and identifying women as the problem

The strategy of blaming and shaming women’s abilities is common among the comments on various blog posts where the recruitment of women to the Armed Forces are discussed. Men expresses resistance or dissent of this issues in a context that is informally accepted (Joanna Tidy 2015). Women are blamed for being “physically weaker” in relation to men and are accused of having “insufficient” capacities to fulfil the duties of the military. This is in line with international literature which find that combat masculinities of men in the military are constructed in accordance to the traditional violence of warring whereas women are idealized in relation to peace and the giving of life (Tidy 2018). Hegemonic military masculinities are situated around an image of the war hero (Joanna Tidy 2016). There are the traits in the Swedish case, even if Sweden has not been in war for two hundred years. Finally, women are blamed for being distractions to male combatants (John Lowe 2020).

For decades, the existence and work of women in male domains have been the subject of blaming and shaming. In the military sphere, women appear to be blamed for being victims of sexual harassment (Bridgit Burns, Kate Grindlay, Kelsey Holt, Ruth Manski and Daniel Grossman 2014), and they have also been pictured as risks due to their assumed reduced physical power (Sarah-Louise Muhr and Beate Slok-Andersen 2017). Other studies show that women are subject to stereotypical descriptions, which depict women as more relationships focused and caring of others (Christine L. Williams 1989). A number of posts describe that the physical requirements for admission to the Armed Forces have been reduced for the benefit of women.

The Swedish Armed Forces make use of the lowest requirements stated for soldiers to ensure that there is a broad intake and thereafter positive action in accordance with the law against discrimination and the Armed Forces Gender Equality Plan. (Blog post, blog nr 3)

Other posts are about quotas or about pointing out that performance should take precedence over quotas, benefitting either women or men.

This is just one of the problems with women in the Armed Forces. As political pressure is exerted for more civilian female managers, these are through quotas being assigned managerial positions that they cannot handle. Well, don’t come and say that that’s the fault of the uniformed men and that they should adapt. There are many abusive male bosses, both civilian and uniformed in the Armed Forces - but the female civilians are the worst! (Blog post, blog nr 1)

The physical testing is related to the blunt truth of breaking with tradition and not differentiating between the sexes. THAT is what is normative. No, a healthy competition where gender is not significant will take the Armed Forces forward best. No one wants positive discrimination, not even those who it benefits. (A comment to blog post, blog nr 4)

In the citations above, the situation in the armed forces is related to the strive towards gender equality in the wider society. In this way, the citation represents social conflict. Women are—from different perspectives—pictured as the problem. Either they are seen as contributing to an overall reduction of requirements that lower the quality of the soldiers in the SAF or they (civilian women) lack the leadership skills that military officers have. However, there are also some reflections in the quotes that recognize that being male does not necessarily mean that the requirements and skills are fulfilled either. Through these reflections, it is clear that the efforts to recruit more women are seen as threatening the power of men in the SAF and the masculine culture of the organization. Research by Cynthia Enloe (2015) suggests that military ignore these questions at an organizational level.

Individualization of structural problems

Cutbacks in the Armed Forces since the 1990s have resulted in staff reductions and the dismantling of regiments (Ola Bergström, Alexander Styhre and Thilander Per 2014). Since about 2015, the new security situation in the world is challenging western military organizations and focus has shifted to new demands on recruits, increased recruitment and efforts to recruit more women. In the online context, this structural organizational shift has been individualized and women are blamed for their inability to serve in relation to men. In the comments, it is claimed that weak women are “allowed” into the armed forces but only the best men are “selected”. A number of posts below illustrate this view of women, but also of young people:

A large part of the article is devoted to the shortage of women in the Armed Forces. [Sten] Tolgfors [the Former Minister of Defence] is in favor of a review of, and the reduction of the requirements imposed on female soldiers in order to get more women into the Armed Forces. (Blog post, blog nr 3)

Consequently, all female applicants had to do was reach a pass level. Male applicants are assessed on an evidence basis so that only the best are accepted. So, it is considerably easier for a woman to be accepted than for a man. (Blog post, blog nr 1)

The quotes above question political and societal goals of gender equality. Instead of discussing organizational goals, women are being shamed and blamed in this context. Therefore women embody organizational and structural problems through blog posts and comments on the Internet.

Verbal violence and abuse of women as individuals

Research has for decades focused on sexual harassment and abusive language about women in male-dominated domains and in the military context (Stephanie Bonnes 2017; Julie Story Byerley 2018). Most harassment has happened offline. However, in recent times harassment has moved to the Internet and is carried out online through various commentary fields, in online contexts (Azy Barak 2005). With the protection of anonymity, misogyny targets and threatens women as a group or as individuals (Anastasia Powell and Nicola Henry 2017). In the online context, violations of women are a common feature. So are the comments on blog posts about equality in the Armed Forces. In the posts below, verbal abuse, sexualisation and objectification of women’s bodies are present. These comments are not removed by the blog moderator as they may rest against the interpretation of the Freedom of Speech Act. The following illustrates a derogatory view of women without being explicitly related to the Armed Forces:

Women – what are they good for? (A comment to a blog post, blog nr 3)

If women kept it closed, there wouldn’t be any males or females. (A comment to a blog post, blog nr 9)

I think we should sell our Swedish women and buy camels. Society would make more sense then. What’s the point of modern women? They serve no useful purpose other than costing a lot and causing a lot of hassle and they can’t even cook or run a house. I understand people who bring women from other cultures here. (A comment to a blog post, blog nr 9)

The above citations express general disrespect and hatred towards women, which indicates social conflict. The quotes also make references to general political and social trends; feminism is mentioned (a political and social feature of Swedish society), foreign cultures are referred to in a way that mocks these (migration is a highly debated issue in Sweden, which is polarizing society) and social phenomena such as marriage-migration are discussed as positive, since obedient and traditional women are brought to Sweden, implying that Swedish women are too independent. We argue that this discourse is an expression of social conflict, where the feminisation process of Swedish society is the target.

The quotations above are expressions of sexism, aimed at expressing contempt towards women based on their sex or gender. Online hate aims to reduce women to their sexuality, to their reproductive bodies or their physical strengths or weaknesses. The comments are offensive, notably misogynist and blaming, using humour to humiliate and ridicule women in general (see Elisabeth Aura McClintock 2019) and military women in particular. The problem and consequences of the quotations above—and sexist comments overall—are not only that they undermine women’s and girls’ human rights, but also that they decrease women’s psychological, emotional and/or physical wellbeing. The effect in the long term is humiliation, undervaluation of women’s skills and opinions, control of their freedom and punishment. This is an attack on the feminisation of society and (in the case of the military) the state organizations.

Objectification of men who work for gender equality

Men are also subject to objectification in various ways. Objectification is an act that reduces and passivates a person or a group to an object rather than recognizing and legitimizing them as actors. We also interpret stigma and discrimination against the topic of gender equality and the men who fight for equality. According to previous research, men working in female-dominated professions are often objectified (Christine L. Williams and E. Joel Heikes 1993), which results in positive and/or negative discrimination. Men are subject to physical objectification concerning appearance requirements and expectations (Adriana Manago, Monique Ward, Kristi Lemm, Loren Reed and Rita Seabrook 2015) and to sexual objectification through career choice (Sarah J. Tracy and Clifton Scott 2006). However, in this study, the findings suggest that men are objectified for completely different reasons. Men who fight for gender equality in male-dominated domains are objectified and accused of having secret underlying agendas. In the quote below, resistance to gender equality is exemplified through the objectification of men:

You can ask the ship’s captain who just put 4,000 lives on the line and ended up with 20 drowned and a wrecked vessel whether he had gone on a gender equality course. Was he trying to seduce a lady who wanted to be impressed? (A comment to a blog post, blog nr 9)

Objectification of men as is identified in the quotation above can be seen through the lens of the hybrid masculinity theories and as a form of individual resistance to gender equality. Varda Wasserman, Ilan Dayan and Eyal Ben-Ari (2018) review the scholarly literature that deals with men and women in male-dominated organizations. They find that men use strategies to overcome discomfort “deriving from the feminine image” (231), or restore their manliness and masculinity within women (including female-dominated norms) dominated spheres and organizations. Within hyper-masculine organizations such as the military, that are facing social change through increased femininity, masculinity is challenged to include non-hegemonic (feminine) behaviors such as strategies for gender equality. Facing social change could be seen as a form of social conflict. Wasserman et al. (2018) discuss that non-hegemonic masculinity (or feminine) strategies are suppressed, delegitimized or marginalized through different kinds of homosocial activities. “Real men”, not those who are objectified as feminists and representing hybrid forms of masculinity, increase their emotional detachment and competitiveness. Objectifying otherwise men who are pro gender equality, in online contexts is just one of the expressions of individual resistance towards gender equality. It should be clarified, in line with Connell (2005), that men themselves are not being objectified in the same way as women. Feminist men are rather just not considered the type of men who subscribe to hegemonic masculinity and therefore are not considered “real men.” They still have a place on the gender hierarchy, above women.

Discussion

Studying resistance as it folds out in online contexts through defence related blogs, the purpose of this article was to gain a deeper understanding of individual resistance as expressions of social conflict. The thematic analysis of selected blogs and comments has shown that resistance to gender equality in the military organization at the individual level can be understood as a primarily emotional expression (compare Lori Kido Lopez 2014). Blaming and shaming are verbal strategies are aimed primarily against women in the military organization but also against the actions of the military organization itself, as well as at men in the military organization, and at the core values of the organization (and the state). The latter seems to indicate that there has been a feminisation (cf. Margreth Nordgren 2000) of the masculine-coded organisation (Connell 2005; Kimmel S. Michael 1987). We also see connections to what we call a larger social conflict, where gender equality is questioned. Individual resistance in online contexts takes the form of social pressure against what is perceived as political correctness within the military organization. Resistance can also be seen as a reaction to co-existing masculine and feminine societal processes, which indicates the presence of social conflict (Ken Clatterbaugh 2018; Hofstede et al. 1991).

Five sub-themes have crystallised from the data: a) blaming the “feminised” organization, b) blaming and shaming women as the problem, c) individualization of structural problems, d) verbal violence and violations and e) objectification of men working with gender equality. The results have been analysed theoretically and the discussion will focus on more general terms. The individual resistance that has been described as blaming and shaming strategies must be explained in more detail from an emotional perspective. Both shame and blame are moral emotions that govern behaviour (June Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig and Debra J. Mashek 2007; Jessica L. Tracy and Richard W. Robins 2006). Both emotions are uncomfortable for the individual and there is a clear connection between these emotions and aggression (June Price Tangney, Patricia Wagner, Carrie Fletcher, and Richard Gramzow 1992). In this study, blame and shame are placed on women, men and the organization. Consequently, the struggle for equality that occurs at the individual and organizational level is downgraded and ridiculed.

Individual resistance to gender equality expressed in online contexts takes place informally and in everyday life. The Swedish military organization formally stipulates abstention from violations in online contexts and provides a number of measures to take if an individual is exposed to violations online. In addition, members of the organization are prohibited from disseminating criminal content, including discriminatory, derogatory or offensive statements. This suggests that resistance may be present in organizations such as the military but mainly unfolds outside of this arena in the online context.

Two different types of individual resistance can be observed. Negative comments regarding the organization’s core values, individualization of structural problems regarding staff recruitment and criticism of women’s abilities to serve. The second type of resistance has little to do with service in the Armed Forces and instead consists of serious violations concerning women as a group, their existence and the objectification of women’s bodies. In line with Jane (2017), it can be concluded that the temperature in the online context is an indication of community attitudes. In relation to the military, these attitudes become extremely worrying, as respect for human rights should be the backbone of any military in a democratic society. We argue that the resistance observed in relation to defence blogs can be seen as expressions of social conflict and that military organizations are likely targets of conflicts over values—due to their distinct traditional character. If “new” and “old” values clash in society, the military is going to be an arena where social conflicts over these values play out. Therefore, it is extremely important that military organizations pursue solid value-based work, do not tolerate any form of discursive aggression and do not wrap questions of rights into discourses on military effectiveness rather than human rights.

One consequence of the occurrence of offensive expressions as part of individual resistance is the increased acceptance of these violations. This is a difficult generalization to make. However, according to the Overton Window Theory (Joseph Lehman 2014), it is not entirely unlikely. With political forces, opposition to gender equality can shift from unlikely to completely acceptable. Extending this conclusion, acceptance of resistance to equality may lead to violence according to Gordon Willard Allport 1954[1979] theory of how ordinary prejudice can escalate into violent acts.

The practical implication of this study is to illuminate the phenomenon of resistance and focus attention on its potential consequences. In the light of this implication, a suggested future study could be an ethnography of a Swedish military unit, to unveil open and hidden forms of resistance to gender equality. Do people in the Swedish military speak politically correct in front of each other but unleash their misogynistic ideas virtually on social media? It would be interesting to gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon as further understanding of resistance in the “offline” military organization.

Acknowledgments

The order of authorship is alphabetical and we are using multiple “first” authors practice in this study. Both authors have contributed equally to the ideas of the paper, design of the study, data collection and analysis, writings and the discussion.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aida Alvinius

Aida Alvinius (Ph.D., Karlstad University, Sweden) is associate professor of leadership under demanding conditions and university lecturer at the Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership at the Swedish Defence University. She has published articles, chapters in books, and research reports within the fields of organisation, leadership, gender, crisis management and military sociology. E-mail: [email protected]

Arita Holmberg

Arita Holmberg (Ph.D., Stockholm University, Sweden) is an associate professor in political science with a focus on security studies and university lecturer at the Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership at the Swedish Defence University. She has published articles, books and book chapters within the field of security and defence transformation, security governance, legitimacy and military sociology. E-mail: [email protected]