Killmiddag är ett initiativ som startades av jämlikhetsstiftelsen Make Equal i syfte att engagera män i debatten om ett jämställt samhälle. Med utgångspunkt i detta var syftet med denna uppsats att öka förståelsen för hur maskulinitet skapas inom sammanhanget Killmiddag. Avsikten var även att undersöka varför män väljer att delta och hur de hanterar eventuella splittringar mellan normerna inom och utanför Killmiddag. Det empiriska materialet samlades in genom nio semistrukturerade intervjuer och analyserades med hjälp av följande teorier; R.W Connells teori om maskuliniteter, Richard Jenkins teori om social identitet, Erving Goffmans teori om intrycksstyrningoch Anthony Giddens teori om reflexivitet. Resultatet visar att drivkraften till att delta i Killmiddag bygger på att det hos deltagarna finns en förändringsvilja som delvis är sprungen ur metoo-rörelsen och ett missnöje mot rådande maskulinitetsnormer. Det framkommer också att Killmiddag fyller en viktig funktion i deras maskulinitetskonstruktion. I sammanhanget ges utrymme att uttrycka delar av sin identitet och visa känslor som annars inte tillåts i andra manliga gemenskaper. Resultatet visar också att det finns en splittring mellan olika situationsbundna maskulinitetsnormer, vilket föranleder en konflikt mellan individens självuppfattning, maskulinitetsnormer och behovet av andras bekräftelse. Utifrån detta framkommer tre strategier för hantering av dessa splittringar; utmana och förändra normerna, anpassa sig till situationen eller aktivt omge sig med likasinnade. / “Killmiddag” is an initiative launched by the equality foundation Make Equal, with the purpose of engaging men in gender equality issues. Based on this, the intention of this study was to increase knowledge and understanding of how masculinity is created within the context of Killmiddag. Our aim was also to find the reasons why men choose to participate, as well as how they deal with possible conflict between the norms within, and outside of, the Killmiddag forum. The empirical material was collected through nine semi-structured interviews and was analyzed using the following theories; R.W Connell's theory of masculinities, Richard Jenkin's theory of social identity, Erving Goffman's theory of impression management and Anthony Giddens’s theory of reflexivity. The result shows that men’s motivation to participate in Killmiddag is sparked by a desire to change current masculinity norms, and that this is partly due to the MeToo movement. It also shows that Killmiddag plays an important part when it comes to the participants’ personal constructions of masculinity, this mainly as it is a context that allows them to express parts of their identity and show emotions that normally are not accepted within male forums. In addition, the result brings light to a split between different situational masculinity norms, which can cause conflict between an individual’s self-perception, masculinity standards and the need for others’ approval. In regards to this, three different strategies for managing these problems were found: to challenge and change the norms, adapt to the given situation or purposefully surround oneself with like-minded people.

The aim of this study is to examine the way vulnerability among men is discussed and negotiated in relation to their notion of masculinity during a “killmiddag” (literally: dinner for boys). It also seeks to find in what way the participants relate to each other and the group in this specific context which in itself questions gender norms. The Swedish initiative “killmiddag”, launched in 2016, comes with a set of themes and discussion guides. This study is comprised of a group interview with three participants conducted in the formula of a regular “killmiddag” and two additional interviews with men who have previous experience with arranging these events. The study finds that the participants constantly relate to gender norms and discuss how they find it awkward to show sadness and talk about complex emotions with other men. They attribute this to a learned behaviour from both their upbringings, interactions with other men and the way norms are communicated through commercial mass culture. The study concludes that the participants show increased male vulnerability and sensitivity but at the same time show signs of conforming to some of the gender norms they are criticizing. By identifying with and validating each other the participants seem to practice vulnerability in order to better fit in with the group.

Currently, men’s responsibility is the focus of much of the public talk on gender equality in Sweden.This has given rise to a number of organisations carrying the overall ambition to include menin what has traditionally been regarded as a women´s issue. One of these initiatives is called #killmiddag,”dinner for guys”, and can be understood as a call out for men to get together and have intimateconversations with each other in order to free themselves from destructive masculinitynorms. In this thesis, the feminist equality initiative #killmiddag is scrutinized with the aim to findwhat possibilities and restraints the initiative might give rise to in regards to issues connected togender equality. The empirical material consists of the initiatives conversational guides and instructionsalong with a number of press articles published between the years of 2016-2018. In order toanalyze this material, specifically the role of conversations, experience and emotions this thesis usesresearch about therapeutic discourse and how this is linked to contemporary ideals about intimacy.This analysis focuses on how problems and solutions are articulated discursively, and how categorieslike ”gender equality” is filled with meaning. Using research concerning the effects of marketbasedforms of governing, my goal is to further contribute to a discussion about what happens with”gender equality” when market rationalities come to replace conflicting interests in politics. Assistedby a poststructuralist approach this thesis highlights some of the problems in using personalexperience as a source of objective knowledge, and how the use of emotions and intimacy, withtheir inbuilt epistemological fragility, might not necessarily be considered apt when striving for politicalchange.

In the summer of 2016, several sexual assaults of women occurred in Swedish music festivals. These assaults were all carried out by men. As a response to this the equality foundation Make Equal launched the initiative #killmiddag or in English, #guytalk. The concept is that men have dinner and talk about topics they usually do not discuss using conversation guides from #guytalks website. The conversation topics are love, friendship, ego, avoidance, fragility, and sex. The ambition with #guytalk is that guys and men will start working with themselves as a step towards an equal society. The aim for the study is to discuss constructions of masculinity and how meaning is created in relation to #guytalk. Questions that guided the investigation was: How can #guytalk be understood through diverse discourses? What meanings do the informants ascribe #guytalk? How is masculinity constructed in relation to #guytalk? To answer these questions, I have interviewed five men who has participated in #guytalk at least one time. Furthermore, I have analyzed what has been written on #guytalks website. The study shows that there are two dominating discourses through which #guytalk is articulated. There is the fight-discourse through which #guytalk is understood as part of the fight for equality. Then there is the therapy-discourse that is connected to individualism through which #guytalk is understood as a form of group therapy for men. Both discourses are prominent in the material and sometimes but not necessarily contradicting each other. The discourses are central in how the informants ascribe meaning to the concept but also how it is presented on #guytalks website. I suggest that the masculinity ideals that take form in relation to #guytalk, which are associated to emotional growth and displaying emotion should be understood through inclusive masculinity theory rather than the theorization of hegemonic masculinity.