Keywords

Introduction

It is well-established that gender is key in security politics and the field of disinformation is no exception (Edenborg, 2021; Cushman & Avramov, 2021). This chapter presents an analysis of how the Russian state-affiliated media Sputnik and RT use gender in their coverage about Sweden as part of their disinformation. By way of a narrative analysis of Sputnik and RT news coverage about Sweden, using the analytical model developed by Wagnsson and Barzanje (2021) and which is based on methodological tools defined by Somers (1994), a number of sub-narratives were identified: Sweden is unsafe for women; Feminized societal security; The armed forces, firefighters, and the police; Gender as an absurd Swedish obsession; Muslim traditions clash with feminism and gender equality; Women moving ahead: are they taking over? The vulgarity of women; and, finally, The wounded (un)sexy space. Each of these sub-narratives is presented below. The sub-narrative was derived from aggregating narratives of the individual news pieces (plots) reporting on gender. Each plot was derived from a systematic analysis of a set of narrative features. (For a full presentation of the method see Chap. 4.)

The analysis paid special attention to how the news reports were constructed and what storytelling techniques that were used. The most significant of these techniques was the instigation of polarization (in particular between individuals of different gender and religions and between groups with different views on gender and feminism), sometimes combined with emotionally charged depictions. According to the Sputnik and RT news narrative the preoccupation with gender in Sweden weakens the country. It causes conflicts between Swedes and weakens its national defense forces.

The gender narrative was strong in Sputnik but appeared only occasionally in RT. Through the gender narrative, Sweden was seen as a country where feminism, equality between the sexes, and discrimination in favor of LGBTQ+ groups impacted a number of social and political issues. Feminism and gender equality were depicted as cornerstones of Swedish society and often functioned as perspectives applied to various news topics—from recruitment to the armed forces to marginalized LGBTQ+ Muslims. Gender was thus included in the coverage of a broad scope of issues regarding equality between men and women, feminism, feminist politics, LGBTQ+ rights, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, including for example individuals’ sexual identity, pornography, and promiscuity. Sputnik used the gender narrative to demonstrate how the reality of Swedish society deviated from the ideal model it had prescribed for itself. The coverage claimed that gender equality and feminism were promoted as Swedish trademarks but were at the same time heavily contested by Swedes. This, according to Sputnik, gave rise to numerous problems in the Swedish society, generating conflict and controversy between for example right-wing supporters and LGBTQ+communities, between feminist proponents and Muslim groups, and between men and women. Gender was the cause of the conflict in some of these, while in others it aggravated existing problems. Regardless of how the causes were explained, the Swedish government and other authorities had difficulties addressing any of them.

The shared features that sorted gender-related news into a narrative could best be characterized by their inconsistencies and the lack of a neat pattern of plots. The conflicts and social ills that gender concerns gave rise to, and which were said to be a strong contributory factor to Sweden’s decline, were both subtle and obvious, depicting both ordinary and dramatic events. Plots told of antagonism and division between men and women, with women claiming to be discriminated against or made subordinate. Sputnik wrote: “Swedish politics are becoming increasingly polarized along gender lines…” (Sputnik February 25, 2020h), while another news item reported that this appeared not to be the case in the workplace, at least not with regard to sexual harassment, to which men and women were equally exposed according to a recent survey—the explanatory factor being which sex dominated the workplace (Sputnik July 9, 2020a).

Sweden appeared obsessed with inequality between the sexes and the harassment of women, regardless of the facts of the matter. Several plots told of a Sweden that promoted itself as governed by feminist concerns, having taken initiatives to increase equality between the sexes, intent on preventing abuse and discrimination, but where the government and feminist proponents had gone astray—leaving reality behind and ignoring the facts (Sputnik July 9, 2019a). Exposure of the hypocrisy surrounding gender-related issues was typical of the narrative and came to the fore in all the sub-narratives.

Sweden Is Unsafe for Women

A strong undercurrent in the narrative on gender was that despite all the talk of feminism and gender equality, women in Sweden felt insecure. They were reported as being exposed to threats and as feeling afraid. The sub-narrative “Sweden is unsafe for women” was demonstrated in several plots and the problems focused not just on women’s exposed positions, but also on the conflicts that the preoccupation with gender had given rise to. This contradictory sub-narrative demonstrates how gender was used to highlight its counterproductive consequences: despite Sweden’s preoccupation with feminism and LGBTQ+ issues, women felt unsafe and polarization was increasing between gender groups in society.

In an article, “Quarter of Swedish Women Afraid to Leave Home, Survey”, Sputnik (October 8, 2019e) presented the results of a survey that showed Swedish women afraid to walk home at night for fear of being abused, beaten, or sexually assaulted. The preamble to the article stated that deadly violence was “relatively uncommon” in Sweden, but that such violence and the number of sexual assaults had increased in recent years—a trend, it was noted, that went against the UN principle of reducing all forms of violence against women. The article did not state to what extent there was deadly violence and from what level it had increased. The article referred to a “wave of sexual assaults”, but no statistics were given on the number of crimes committed. The plot closed with a reflection by the initiator of the survey, Sofie Lifvin, who was quoted telling SVT: “A more restricted life is a serious consequence of fears of being exposed to crimes that mainly affect women, but by extension it is a problem for all of us if the goal is for us to have an equal society”.

The plot was typical of this sub-narrative in the sense that it was centered on and presented a social problem built on statistics or scientific research but the interpretation of the figures was contradictory, claiming an increase in violence directed at women and arguing that the deadly violence remained at the same level as in recent years. The exposure to crime was framed as being gravest for women but the figures presented did not indicate this. The main take away from the story was that women in Sweden were at risk when they left their homes at night and, given the wave of sexual assaults, were right to be afraid. Sputnik reported that women chose alternative routes because they feared becoming crime victims. The quote by Lifvin together with accompanying statistics painted a gloomy picture of a Sweden where the fear of crime, and the targeting of women in particular, kept people indoors and prevented an equal society. Both consequences could be said to strike at the very core of what Sweden was known as or expected to be: a liberal and feminist country where people were free and safe, and where equality between the sexes was central (Sputnik October 8, 2019e).

Another article on women’s insecurity reported on a women-only music festival. Women needed a “man-free” zone where they could safely participate in and attend events without running the risk of being sexually abused. The story did not revolve around the risk of abuse, but dealt with the organizers’ efforts to accomplish a women-only festival without being sued for discrimination. The year before, it had been ruled discriminatory because of the way it was promoted and communicated to the public. Men must not be forbidden to attend or to buy tickets, but the festival was for women and non-binary people, Sputnik clarified. The problem and the solution to the plot overlapped and both reinforced the view that women were vulnerable. The “man-free” festival was reported to have been launched in order to help the authorities protect women from rape and abuse (Sputnik November 29, 2019i). The plot emphasized Sputnik’s claim of Swedish feminists’ hypocrisy, reporting that despite all the talk about gender equality, women in Sweden were still subject to abuse and organizations were trying to find ways around the liberal principles that Swedish elites boasted of defending. It also implicitly indicated that law enforcement was unable to keep women safe.

Feminized Societal Security: The Armed Forces, Fire Fighters, and the Police

A key characteristic of the gender narrative in Sputnik were accounts of the feminization of typical male professions. The sub-narrative “Feminized societal security: the armed forces, fire fighters, and the police” discussed how women had begun to enter typically male-dominated professions of a kind that demanded extraordinary physical strength. The analysis of the problem definition of the plot found that recruitment was also a problem, however. The armed forces were expected to comprise women and men but, like the police, they faced serious problems recruiting women. Men in Sweden seemed keener on engaging in a military career than women, and this was reported as the problem of the plot (Sputnik October 15, 2020s). Sputnik quoted the Swedish Armed Forces’ Facebook page: “How can one of the world’s most equal countries have a defense force where just under one-fifth of its personnel are women? This is indefensible. Our work to become more like the country we defend continues. An equal defense is a stronger defense” (Sputnik October 15, 2020s).

The dilemma of too few women being attracted to the Armed Forces was first and foremost presented as a problem in light of the heavy promotion of gender neutrality, diversity, and equality. As it turned out, the armed forces had not met the objective to become more like the country it was defending. Set against its Facebook post, Sputnik’s framing of the problem was that the Swedish Armed Forces appeared more like promoters of LGBTQ+ rights and gender equality than an actual military force. This criticism was reinforced following publication of a newspaper advertisement in which the Defense Force promoted its pro-LGBTQ+ sympathies (Sputnik July 30, 2019b; see also Sputnik August 4, 2020q). A Sputnik article entitled “´You’re soldiers not activists´: Swedish Soldiers Under Fire on Twitter for Front Page Gay Pride Ad”, (July 30, 2019b) republished the advertisement and reported negative reactions to it. In response some readers tweeted that the Defense Force had gone mad. Swedes were turning against their own military force and their main argument, according to Sputnik, was that the armed forces should not engage in political campaigning or propaganda, their money should not be spent on advertisements, and the focus should be on defending Sweden rather than promoting pride festivals. One tweet read: “Your only task is to defend Sweden against external enemies so stop blithering and devote yourself to what you should be doing. You are soldiers, not Pride activists”. Other users tweeted highly critical and sarcastic messages, such as: “I pray to God we’ll never need to be defended by the Swedish Pride Army and their sham soldiers”; and “Are you going to beat the Russians with a handbag?”

Despite a note at the end of the plot (i.e. the narrative of the news piece) that the advertisement had also sparked positive responses, with people saying the PR stunt with regard to LGBTQ+ rights was a necessary one, the message was that the armed forces were propagandistic, had gone astray, and had ceased to give priority to the defense of Sweden. The coverage of the armed forces’ participation in the Stockholm Pride Festival and the defense of LGBTQ+ rights was used to demonstrate the weakness of Swedish defense and the weak support it had from the public. The article ended with a brief background paragraph that, with a slight touch of irony, highlighted the weight the Swedish Armed Forces had assigned to the festival.

The Swedish Armed Forces have been taking part in various Pride events since the 2000s. This year, it has a packed schedule that includes seminars on “Coming out in a macho organisation”, actual pride parades and even a “Run for Pride” event, touted as the most colourful run of the year. (Sputnik July 30, 2019b)

Another typical series of stories that made up the sub-narrative of feminized security were plots about women police and firefighters. As was the case with the armed forces, recruitment of women to the police force was in decline. The drop in the number of female police officers, however, was mentioned as only one of several problems facing Swedish law enforcement. There were also too few police officers with foreign backgrounds. The proportion of this category of police officers had not increased over the past four years, while at the same time Sweden faced an increase in gang violence and no-go-zones in the suburbs (Sputnik December 30, 2020w).

One of the plots centered on two separate problems that were connected only in the sense that they both illustrated the difficulties the police force faced in Sweden. There were too few women and minority groups represented in the force and there was increased gang-violence, giving rise to “street shootouts, explosions and gangland violence”. The two problems in focus—recruiting women and minority groups, and gang violence—were unrelated and never connected; yet they appeared in the same plot. This was a narrative structure that was seen many times in the Sputnik plots. In contrast to the storytelling technique where seemingly unrelated problems or topics are tightly connected by way of the narrative structure of the plot there are no narrative tools used to connect the disparate problems. This might be seen as an invitation to the Sputnik consumers to make the connections themselves (More about storytelling techniques below. See Chap. 10 of this volume.)

A background paragraph recounting the gender history of the Swedish police stated that the force was 33% women in 2019, of a total of 20,000 officers. Chief of Police Max Lutteman was quoted as saying that the recruitment of women to the police force was a priority. Sputnik reported that the number of women signing up remained stable and that “progress in this area has been slow”. Lutteman commented that this was due to tradition. The police were reported to be dealing with the problem by facilitating different admission criteria for women, such as adopting different physical endurance standards for women than for men.

The article then reported on the number of police with foreign backgrounds. The problems here were poor test scores on problem-solving and in personality tests, and poor language skills. Seemingly with no immediate connection to the paragraphs about recruitment, there was a final note on the increase in gang-related criminality and of no-go areas in the Swedish suburbs, with reference to Lasse Wierup’s recent book, Gangster’s Paradise. How Sweden became an arena for crime, shootings and bombings (Sputnik December 30, 2020w). The numbers of gangs and gang members were repeated from the introduction to the plot.

The difficulty of recruiting women to the armed forces was the problem that led the story. It was a major failure for a police force in a nation making constant claims to be promoting feminism. As the story moved on, however, the question broadened to include not just women, but another underrepresented group—applicants with foreign backgrounds. Finally, the plot about the difficulties recruiting marginalized groups turned into the problem of gang violence and suburbs that had been identified as no-go areas. It was never explicitly mentioned, but the question of how the recruitment of women could be so important to the police when criminal gangs were roaming the suburbs was left hanging.

Firefighting was yet another profession in Sweden with few women applicants and voices calling for an increase in numbers, according to Sputnik. As with many of the plots in this sub-narrative, it was unclear who exactly was calling for an increase in women or increased equality. The low level of women was reported to have been criticized, however, and in one of the plots this was raised by a “group of female firefighters”. Like the stories about the armed forces and the police, the problem identified in the plot was the difficulty in increasing the number of women because they did not pass the physical tests, which were set up for men and not women. Women were reported as being disappointed that they were unable to join but if the bar were lowered, this would be discriminating against male applicants who passed—or so the argument went. Comparisons were made between the tests for firefighters and those for the police, the latter having lowered its bar to accommodate female standards and, as a consequence, seen overall performance levels decline.

The Swedish Police Academy sets lower strength requirements for women than men and has been criticized for endorsing a set of double standards and lowering the overall level of performance. (Sputnik December 22, 2020v)

Blanche Sande at the right-wing Swedish think tank, Timbro, was reported as saying that the use of employment quotas to recruit more women caused two main problems:

One is that these “quotas” are really just a finer way of saying “discrimination”, in this case discrimination against male applicants who lose their place to female applicants with poorer results.

The significance of the firefighter needing to be strong and fit enough to do the job was questioned and debated. The union director at the Greater Gothenburg rescue services and some female fire fighters argued that it was a question of group performance and in a sense which qualities a firefighter needed to contribute to the group. The implicit question, never explicitly spelled out, was whether firefighting had become less about physical strength and more about teamwork and other qualities—or from its viewpoint less masculine and more feminine. Or whether it was still dependent on the physical strength of each individual, and there was therefore a need to turn down most women applicants (Sputnik December 22, 2020v).

The sub-narrative exposed how Sweden struggled to live up to its proclaimed gender equality norm and feminist image. It asked numerous questions about weaknesses and strengths in men and women (and LGBTQ+ groups), and how these might be reconciled. The armed forces, firefighters, and the police were three traditionally male institutions, all involved in providing national security, which were reported as being weakened if or when women were admitted. Even if not explicit in the articles, an implicit rhetorical question was whether women could do physically demanding jobs like men, and the extent to which in striving for equality Sweden was going against all rhyme and reason, against biology and against nature. The plots balanced on a thin line between sound and reasonable analyses and denigrating depictions of a gender debate that had gone too far. Nonetheless, the plots added to the general view of the narrative that gender equality caused all sorts of problems—from difficulties in recruitment, to attracting the right people, to carrying out assigned tasks (Sputnik December 22, 2020v). Most importantly, the plots in this sub-narrative articulated with total certainty how Sweden’s key security institutions were being weakened by their insistence on gender equality at all costs.

Gender as an Absurd Swedish Obsession

A seemingly exaggerated—and at times even absurd—preoccupation with gender as a solution to all social problems was a strong sub-narrative given further salience by its juxtaposition with the sub-narrative of how gender issues fueled domestic conflicts and were the cause of social problems and poor health, as illustrated by the sub-narrative of the (un)sexy space (see below). The obsession with gender issues was expressed through the broad range of events in which gender was the focus or framed reports—from crime prevention to snow removal and foreign policy (see for ex Sputnik September 11, 2020r). A common characteristic of the coverage was that the gender or feminist perspective was portrayed as silly, absurd, and sometimes outright stupid. In one plot, the Stockholm authorities, reportedly notorious for placing gender at the top of the agenda, were reported to have failed to manage snow removal properly following difficult weather conditions. The plot ended with a picture from a tweet of a snowy street and text saying: “Feminist snow removal looks misleadingly like no snow removal at all”—or, in other words questioning what good feminism was doing to the citizens of Stockholm (Sputnik September 19, 2019d).

In another report from Stockholm, a local politician proposed courses on feminism, gender, and masculine norms for men as a measure to stop the increase in gang violence in the suburbs. While, quite unusually, the plot led with a solution instead of a problem, the proposition was interpreted as confirmation that the political leadership had lost control of the suburbs. The police were said to mistrust the method and a representative of the police was quoted as saying, in comments seemingly unrelated to the proposed gender course, that the situation had been allowed to get out of control while politicians remained paralyzed.

The plot was told as one long ridiculous story, where the gender course was treated as an absurdity while the quotes confirmed that the Swedish authorities appeared to have lost all sense of proportion, and believed that talking about and teaching gender would reduce crime and violence. The lead paragraph read:

While Stockholm has seen close to 70 shooting incidents so far this year and experiences an average of five rapes a day, the authorities intend to remedy its spiralling crime problem by talking more about feminism. (Sputnik September 19, 2019d)

The plot unfolded with information about several other measures taken, such as the dissemination of information, engagement by social services, extensive investigations of underage offending, and so on. The police expressed skepticism, which made the political authorities appear isolated in their belief in gender education as a remedy for the surging violence. Tweets from ordinary Swedes lined up with the police, but some failed to take the proposition seriously and saw it as a joke. One anonymous Swede tweeted: “You might believe this is a sketch, but it isn’t”.

On a more serious note, the plot depicted how Stockholm’s political leaders were faced with a “spiraling crime problem”, against which they were clueless. It was presented as far from comical but instead puzzling that the solution they ended up promoting was to talk feminism to this group of suburban young men. What was even more astonishing, according to the plot, was that resorting to gender for solutions to social problems appeared common rather than unusual for Swedish decision makers. The narrator of the plot provided a context for the proposition, noting “this is not the first time the Swedish authorities have sought solace in feminism”, to which was added examples from (once again) “gender-equal snowplowing”, which it was reported had led to a traffic standstill as pavements were given higher priority than the streets, and “feminist urban planning”—a project aimed at increasing security for women living in the “no-go” Stockholm suburb of Husby. Referring to these other controversial gender projects served to further increase the impression of absurdity and irony of the gender course. Within the plot the problem and proposed solution were ridiculed. The proponents of the gender course as a strategy were made to represent Sweden’s naivety and inability to deal with genuine, serious problems—in a mockery of the incompetence of the Stockholm politicians whose preoccupation with feminism seemed to weaken their ability to govern. Tweets from the public added to this image. One tweet read: “Why not top it with some LGBT certification and drills in gender language so that they [the criminal gang members] learn the official totalitarian newspeak”. This attitude was in line with other reports where a naive Swedish leadership was shown to have lost control of governing the country, while insisting that talking about and promoting feminism was the answer to all social ills (Sputnik September 19, 2019d).

Women Moving Ahead: Are They Taking Over? The Vulgarity of Women

The sub-narrative “women moving ahead: are they taking over” told how women’s interests and voices were given increased attention in the Swedish public sphere, and the plots demonstrated that Swedish women knew how to speak up. These outspoken women were most often depicted in negative terms and the epithet feminism was associated with offensiveness, unmotivated attacks, and vulgar and tasteless behavior. Accounts of gender equality and feminism were often used to show the absurdity of liberalism; it was as if all boundaries dissolved when feminists were let loose. In this sense, women rampaging in society was part of the ills that liberalism and progressive forces caused for Sweden, thereby overlapping with the narrative of the liberal left as a threat to the nation (see Chap. 6). Plots depicted famous women saying crazy things, and musicians and artists as vulgar, while campaigns urged women to take up more room in public spaces. Taken together, it was claimed that this worked to normalize vulgarity (Sputnik March 4, 2020k). It was reported that the Feminist political party (FI) was recruiting young children in its efforts to increase its membership. Even the prestigious daily Dagens Nyheter appeared to have been caught up in the feminist-crazed trend by raising concerns about there being too many stuffed “male” animals in museums (Sputnik October 25, 2019g), and there were plots describing how the armed forces were keener on promoting LGBTQ+ rights than defending the country.

It was typical for these plots to begin with proposals on gender equality that had been made by representatives of the establishment, the government, local government, or a state authority. Having presented their views or defined a problem, some plots followed by putting the question in a wider context: the plot inferred a marked “however”, which functioned as a dividing line in the structure of the plot and was followed by emotionally charged negative responses from angry and upset men and women: men upset with women, women upset with men or citizens upset with the authorities.

One illustrative plot is a report about Moa Berglöf, who used to be a speechwriter for the former prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, of the conservative Moderaterna party, and who now worked as a journalist. She had alleged in an article that the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, might have faked his Covid-19 infection to gain political popularity, and had been aggressively attacked for this on social media, which Twitter quotes from citizens and an expert testified to. Berglöf was said to have presented herself as a “feminist supremacist” and was referred to as a feminist writer. These identity markers were unconnected with her accusations against Johnson, but were nonetheless linked in the plot. Berglöf’s outburst against Johnson was also set in the context of her past as the writer of the famous Reinfeldt speech “open your hearts”, which was an appeal to Swedes to be accepting of difference and show compassion for fellow human beings (then in connection with migration), and had attracted much attention at the time and since. The contradictory description of Berglöf appeared to explain how feminism might change an individual for the worse. Implicitly, Berglöf’s feminist profile explained her lack of empathy and compassion. Responses from social media users were reported as highly critical. Magnus Ranstorp, “Sweden’s leading terror researcher”, tweeted a response to Berglöf’s comments about Johnson, describing her as: “Lacking empathy and extremely stupid”. Other descriptions were “online hater”, a “sick person”, and a “disgusting leftist troll” (Sputnik April 14, 2020l).

A young, successful, and well-known Swedish influencer, Bianca Ingrosso, was also depicted in Sputnik as going overboard in advising women to drink their period blood as, she claimed, this would help to shorten their periods. Ingrosso was depicted as a mad woman, even if it was alleged that the blog post about the blood did not come from her pen but was written by her equally famous mother, Pernilla Wahlgren. The plot positioned Ingrosso in contradictory roles that she inhabited at one and the same time: the role of a madwoman and a pampered, young, silly but influential blonde. The responses to her suggestion were vulgar and highly critical. Like the case of the art installation of a menstruating woman in a park in a small southern Swedish town, Ingrosso upset Swedes with her talk of blood and periods. It was the kind of talk that caused conflict, dispute, and unrest (Sputnik April 15, 2020m).

A similar plot demonstrating the vulgarity of Swedish women explained how a Swedish women punk band, which had won an award in the category best Rock/Metal Band of the Year, had given a live performance on Swedish Public Radio Broadcasting (SRP3). In connection with the concert, one of the band members was reported to have given a speech praising women struggling in the healthcare sector, those working in women’s shelters and those who hid refugees. The speech ended with one of the band members mooning and saying: “Fuck Jimmy”, in a reference to the right-wing Sweden Democrats and their leader Jimmy Åkesson. Comments on what Sputnik headlined “roaring profanities”, for and against the speech and the act, were reported but the plot became a discussion on immigration. Once again, women were depicted as loud, vulgar, outspoken, and showing bad taste, but also as being given an elevated platform on which to display themselves (Sputnik January 22, 2020c). The denigration of Swedish feminists was further reinforced, since the article was published on the same day as an article about a Swedish Muslim woman who won a prize for her modest and devout fashion style, which was referred to as feminine, subdued, and discreet.

Feminism a Threat to Traditional Values

“Impudent women”, which tended to be an epithet used for feminists, cut through all the gender sub-narratives. This gave expression to views about feminists as set apart, vulgar, and provocative, but also positioned women as well as feminism as a threat to traditional values. While feminists and their proponents argued that they represented progress, their opponents claimed that feminism generated societal problems and increased domestic conflict. This sub-narrative interpreted feminism as a threat to traditional values in plots that explained how the establishment failed to see the extent to which feminism challenged traditional values and ways of life. At the same time the sub-narrative told how difficulties motivated women to break into male territory (alongside the difficulties of recruiting female police officers and firefighters discussed above). Swedish gender efforts seemed to fail on both counts.

There was a depiction of feminism and female vulgarity clashing with traditional values in the small town of Sölvesborg in the south of Sweden, the hometown of the SD leader Åkesson and run by the SD. It reported on controversies surrounding the Pride rainbow flag and provocative modern art installations exhibited in the town (see above). The local SD leadership had taken down the rainbow flag because, along with the provocative art pieces showing menstruating women sitting with their legs spread apart, both were said to be disturbing older inhabitants and perceived as provocative. The perspective from which the plot was told, or its narrator, was that of the SD leadership, which argued against the flag and the art installations for the sake of the children in Sölvesborg who should be protected from such imagery. The rainbow flag was framed as being inappropriate because it was a political symbol that should not be on public display as representing the town, because this went against tradition. In addition, if someone wanted to glorify women’s menstruation, which was what proponents of the piece argued, they should buy the art for their own homes and not display it in public places (Sputnik September 17, 2019c).

An Instagram post in Swedish of Amanda Lindh, the Minister of Culture and Democracy, was added to the article but not translated. In it, Lindh argued fervently for art to be free and wrote that what was provocative today might be considered classical (i.e. traditional) in the future. The important point made in the story was that Sweden, as exemplified here in one of its strongest national conservative municipalities, was not only feminist with a disregard for conservative values, but that gender equality and feminism brought polarization. The story made it clear that defenders of traditional values and cultural heritage had no support from the government (Sputnik September 17, 2019c).

The sub-narrative told in several plots how feminism challenged not only patriarchal structures and historically grounded male dominance, but core national and traditional values. In an article “Swedish Thesis That Labels Academic Freedom, Objectivism ‘Patriarchal Oppression’ Gets Highest Grade” (Sputnik January 27, 2020e), Sputnik referred to an academic thesis by a female political scientist who argued that objectivity and academic freedom function in ways that maintain the patriarchy or suppress women. The thesis had been brought to Sputnik’s attention by the foundation Academic Rights Watch, which was reported as seeing this as a sign of how relativism and radical feminism had spread to “Sweden’s most prestigious universities”. The scholar in question was reported as arguing that truth-seeking and objectivity led to women’s subordination. The plot was structured as a tension between feminists and the universities over what science and objectivity represented, and to what extent these pillars should be defended against the feminist threat of relativism. The Sputnik article was alarmist in its formulations and warned against the threat posed by feminist views on academic research and science, arguing that it might ruin both. The preamble to the article read: “A foundation set up to guard academic freedom in Sweden has noted an alarming spread of relativism and radical feminism within the country’s most prestigious universities” (Sputnik January 27, 2020e). Feminism was depicted as a genuine and concrete threat to the academic tradition of doing science and what was referred to as scientific work. Moreover, “the mere fact that objectivity is sought in the research world is, according to the thesis, in itself an expression of patriarchy, which refers to ‘the structural subordination of the woman in relation to the man’”. Feminist views could therefore be seen as disavowing objectivity in science.

Another typically male domain that was reportedly being questioned by feminism was eating meat. In a provocative and critical plot, the Swedish National Food Agency was reported as accusing men of “sticking to a meat diet for the sake of masculinity”, and of seeking to change this norm by redefining masculinity. In a tweet aimed at the male population, the agency urged:

Men and boys eat the most meat, which is not good for health and environment. How can the meat norm be changed? You don’t have to eat a lot of meat to be masculine or build muscle.

The responses from politicians and ordinary citizens were fierce and the agency was accused of left-wing activism. Critics argued that it was not for the agency to spend time and money on such issues. One social media user wrote: “Kick all left-wing activists from the National Food Agency”. Responses were published from Swedish political representatives, among them Moderate Party MP Lars Beckman whose tweet read: “Has your account been hijacked or have some of your employees tweeted from the wrong account? Or is this how the Swedish National Food Agency expresses itself now?”

Most of the tweets shared the perspective that a government agency should not have any opinions on what people (or men) prefer to eat or how their food intake connects to their perception of gender. Nonetheless, the tweets made obvious the extent to which gender issues stirred emotions and indicated both anti-establishment sentiments among the public and critical views about gender being integrated into every policy area. Swedish men were being provoked on both accounts by being told not to eat so much meat (Sputnik December 4, 2019j). The article followed a pattern in Sputnik where it was repeatedly shown how men and masculinity were being challenged and questioned by liberal authorities.

Muslim Traditions Clash with Feminism and Gender Equality

The sub-narrative Muslim traditions clash with feminism and gender equality told the strongest story of the problems feminism faced in Sweden. Feminism and gender equality were presented as deeply challenged when set in the context of Islam and the Muslim community in Sweden. The clashes between Islamic and Western lifestyles, which Sputnik and RT highlighted throughout their coverage, were particularly obvious when applied to feminism and gender equality.

Several reports centered on disputes surrounding the veil and the hijab—the two terms often used interchangeablyFootnote 1—from whether it could legally be banned in public or for young girls in school, or should instead be accepted and perhaps even encouraged (Sputnik December 16, 2019k; Sputnik January 15, 2020a; March 3, 2020j; RT February 4, 2020a), and whether non-Muslim women should wear the veil in Islamic environments out of respect for Muslim customs (Sputnik October 11, 2019f). Even Princess Victoria, who was usually depicted as representing national unity and national pride, ended up in what Sputnik referred to as “Hot Water for Donning Islamic Veil” when visiting a mosque in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The princess wearing a veil was said to “have sparked strong republican feelings” (Sputnik November 11, 2019h). A foreign correspondent reporting from Iran appearing on air wearing an “Islamic veil” received similar criticism (Sputnik October 11, 2019f). The headline read: “Swedish broadcaster roasted for hijab-clad correspondent”.

The question of the veil and women’s rights was reported as an implicit threat to Sweden and used symbolically to confirm the Islamic takeover of society (see Chap. 8). One plot reviewed a televised debate that had been shown on public service television (SVT) about whether pupils should be banned from wearing the hijab in school. The debate between two Muslim women with differing views had become heated and the headline read: “Outrage as Muslim Tells Hijab Opponent to ‘Move Away’ From Sweden in Televised Debate” (Sputnik March 3, 2020j). Another story reported how a pro-Islamic party had mobilized to get into parliament with claims of giving parents the right to decide on their children’s use of the veil (Sputnik January 23, 2020d).

Local politicians in the southern province of Skåne were reported as having failed in their efforts to ban the veil for girls in publicly funded schools, but the community was depicted as heavily divided. It was a typical pattern of this sub-narrative to use debates about the veil to highlight heated and emotionally charged divisions between people in Sweden. One plot told how non-Muslim teachers were wearing the veil in solidarity with their Muslim women colleagues and pupils. Those who favored a ban were quoted as saying the veil-wearing teachers were “idiots” and “medieval”, and argued that they “promoted the oppression of women” (Sputnik January 15, 2020a).

One of these plots told how the Discrimination Ombudsman had ruled that the decision by Skurup municipality to ban the veil in primary schools and preschools was illegal (Sputnik November 16, 2020t). Sputnik wrote: “the Islamic dress code is thus protected under the law”. The ruling formed the background to the problem of the plot and centered on a heated and divisive debate between citizens and decision makers. Those who argued in favor of the ban said that forcing girls to wear the veil was deeply oppressive and went against feminism, and that society had a responsibility to protect women from such constraints. Others thought that women and children should be able to decide for themselves what they chose to wear, including the veil. One side of the conflict was therefore presented as arguing that banning the veil was an encroachment on freedom of religion and women’s rights, while the other side believed that encouraging or enforcing wearing of the headwear was oppressive to women and denied them their human and civil rights. The arguments between the different views were in essence quite distinct. By juxtaposing them, however, the problem was depicted as an entangled mess of opinions.

Thus, the message of the plot appeared not to be to seek to depict the headwear as incompatible with Swedish feminism as much as to project that Muslim immigration had brought conflicts to local municipalities that were impossible to resolve. There were no solutions to conflicts such as these: not through reconciliation, not by reaching agreement, and not in law. The large number of Muslims in Sweden had brought with them unresolvable conflicts, turning feminist Islam into an oxymoron. The end paragraph of this type of Sputnik plot summarized the question as follows:

The number of Muslims in Sweden has soared in recent decades, from several hundred in the 1950s to over 800 000 in a country of around 10 million today. The conflict between the Islamic view of society and Sweden’s feminist philosophy has raised issues previously unknown to the largely homogenous and predominantly Lutheran nation. Among other things, some Nordic Muslims may find it hard to agree on issues such as women’s rights and the acceptance of sexual minorities, which are seen as staples of Nordic society. (Sputnik November 16, 2020t)

The discussions and controversies surrounding the veil and the hijab showed how Islam had gained a foothold in Swedish society to the point where it had become impossible to maintain feminist values without adapting them to and accommodating Islamic customs. This was shown in several fashion-related plots in which models posed wearing designer hijabs (Sputnik January 22, 2020b), as well as a plot in RT about how public service SVT normalized the veil for children through a music contest app which “allowed users of all ages to dress their on-screen image with the traditional Muslim head scarf for women” (RT 2020 February 4, 2020a).

RT reported that contrary to what might be expected given Sweden’s liberal values, SVT had affirmed and perhaps even encouraged the hijab for young girls, the app being aimed at children from the age of three. This was followed by reactions from the Swedish public, represented through tweets shown on the screen and which said for example: “All to normalize Islamization… Every normal person with or without children should be terrified and disgusted”; and “Islamists have, of course, infiltrated SVT”. Having made it clear that SVT had got itself in hot water (a trend) with its audience, the anchor laid out the context and broadened the issue: Today, he said, was global hijab day and whereas liberal Sweden had chosen to welcome the hijab others had defined it as a no-hijab day. The world was said to have been polarized by world hijab day.

A British and an American woman—both women’s rights activists—had been invited to the studio to explain why one of the most liberal countries in the world would want to affirm the hijab and even impose it on small children. One of the women, Reese Everson, said:

The app developers are merely reflecting the culture taking place in their community. What we know is that a lot of people have immigrated to Sweden, and they are practicing the Muslim faith and they require that their children as young as three wear the hijab. (RT February 4, 2020a)

She went on to say that Swedish teachers were being asked to take responsibility for and ensure that Muslim girls did not take off their hijab “even if they want to play”. At the same time, she added, there had been cases where principals had forbidden pupils to wear the hijab: “So, there is definitely a community where this is a very real and present apparent issue and concern so we have to just allow the app designer to basically play to their audiences if you will”. She concluded by refusing to take a stand or, in a sense, define the problem.

The anchor went on to suggest that perhaps what was going on was cultural appropriation. He asserted that the SVT app might be seen as an effort—perhaps brought on by ignorance—to exploit or insensibly adopt Muslim culture and traditions. In contrast to the moderate and diplomatic reflections made by Frey earlier in the plot, she refuted this saying:

I don’t think there is any appropriation going on (through the SVT app). I think that they are just trying to represent the community. But I do think the hijab does have a lot of negative connotations attached to it which just aren’t being addressed and I hope people will start to address them. (RT February 4, 2020a)

The piece was run again the following day but in a shortened version (RT February 5, 2020b).

Addressing the negative connotations attached to the veil/hijab was exactly what had been done in a plot in Sputnik some two weeks earlier. In an article headlined “Outrage as Swedish Elle Picks Hijab-Clad Influencer as ‘Look of the Year’” (Sputnik, January 22, 2020b), one of Sweden’s most renowned sex experts and authors as well as far right-wing conservative columnists, Katerina Janouch, narrated a plot with reference to fashion reporting in the magazine Elle.

The plot opened with the winning influencer, Imane Asry, referred to as saying “the time is ripe to normalize the hijab in the fashion industry”. The plot told how she had received the prize much to her own astonishment: “I was absolutely convinced that someone who looked like me could not win such an award”. She went on to say that not only Muslims, but also other women can be inspired by her work and that the fashion industry was ready to “normalize the hijab”. The plot showed pictures of Asry in various Muslim outfits. The sequence of events in the plot was then ruptured by a “however”, since the nomination had “ruffled a lot of feathers among the Swedish public”.

Ann Heberlein, a right-wing writer and columnist called Elle “scripture for fashion enthusiasts” and Katerina Janouche, urged women to protest against the prize going to “an Islamist”: “Otherwise, it seems Elle has taken a stance—FOR women’s oppression, against women’s freedom”. Hanif Balif, a Moderate Party MP, was also quoted: “This is stricter hijabism than you find on the streets of Teheran”. The plot argued that many thought Elle was indirectly supporting the oppression of women while also “importing a conflict [anti-Semitism] originating in the Middle East” (Sputnik January 22, 2020b). The plot concluded with the oft-repeated facts and figures on the number of Muslims in Sweden having soared from 500 in 1950 to 800,000 today.

Both Sputnik and RT repeatedly pitched gender equality against Islam and the Muslim community in Sweden. The plots were not formulated to take a particular stance against feminism or against Islamic views on women and gender equality, but they defined and repeated an incompatibility between feminism and Islam, and created a sub-narrative that showed that when feminism clashed with Islam, it folded. The plots sought to show how the foundation of Swedish liberal values was dissolved or was impossible to maintain when faced with Islamic values. It was the defense of liberalism that had led to the demise of feminism and gender equality, and implicitly a growing Islamization of Swedish society. In this sense, the sub-narrative about the clash with Muslim traditions complicated the gender narrative. Feminism was the cause of the Swedish decline. Unresolvable problems arose in combination with the threat of Islamism, and despite feminism being reported as a threat to Swedish traditional values, defending national values became a defense of feminism and gender equality.

A Wounded “(un)sexy space”

The name of this sub-narrative, (un)sexy space, is taken from the study by Wagnsson and Barzanje (2021) and defines the account of sex, sexuality, and reproduction—often in relation to plots about crime (sexual abuse) or health issues (gender dysphoria). It was common for the plots to involve children and youth, which added to the impression that Sweden was not only ultra-liberal, but also a promiscuous country preoccupied with issues regarding sex—or in other words “a sexy space”—from an early age. Plots about Sweden as a sexy space depicted a country far from being based on traditional family values, but nor was it a country where liberal Swedes’ sex lives involved promiscuous, obscene, or exciting sexual adventures. Instead, the liberal sexual approach was reported to have led to all sorts of ailments and discomforts. Plots depicted young people suffering from anxiety and/or depression and being confused about their sexual identity (Sputnik February 13, 2020g). Other plots showed young people as victims of sex crimes or perpetrators of such crimes (Sputnik May 22, 2020p). There were accounts of pedophilia and suggestions on sentences for pedophiles (Sputnik December 14, 2020u). Muslim girls were taught how to please men sexually (Sputnik February 26, 2020i) while young men underwent vasectomies having decided early on that they did not want children (Sputnik February 3, 2020f).

In one plot about gender dysphoria—a condition in which perceived gender identity and biological sex are experienced as a mismatch—in young Nordic people it was argued that the problem was not that of uncertainty about an individual’s sexual identity, but of the mental disorder from which they were suffering. Experts argued that this could not be helped even with a change of sex, regardless of whether the patient believed that to be the case. Thus, the experts interviewed were at a loss to know how to help these young people. The problem was serious: Nordic and Swedish teenagers were suffering from poor mental health and the number of youths with these problems was growing fast. The headline talked about an “avalanche-like increase” among teenage girls (Sputnik February 13, 2020g) and the phrase was repeated in another story on the same topic published a couple of months later. Sputnik later reported that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare had decided not to lower the age at which a person could be able to change gender through surgery (Sputnik September 11, 2020r) forei. It was talked of as a U-turn and explained by the fact that there had been such a rapid increase in the number of young patients in what was termed “the gender reassignment sector”, many of whom had neuropsychiatric diagnoses.

In addition, there was an increase in vasectomies, especially among younger men. In one plot, the headline read: “It’s political: Record Number of Swedish Men Getting Sterilised”, and a sub-headline added an ironic tone, asking: “Is Sweden Ready to Go Chinese on Family Planning?”. Figures were presented followed by explanations of the reasons behind the high numbers. A man, referred to as a “sex educator”, was quoted arguing a connection with the self-determination process of men. They wanted to take matters into their own hands, just like women had with birth control in earlier decades. This could be interpreted as an implicit argument that the reason why men chose not to reproduce stemmed from the attitude of independence brought on by feminism, but this was not spelled out. Nor were any further parallels drawn with China’s family planning in the story (Sputnik February 3, 2020f).

There were also other more scandalous plots about sex-related issues. In one such story, calls were made for drastic and restrictive policies on the purchase of sex, which in turn called for tougher legislation. In a story with the headline “Swedish Government Wants to Throw Sex Buyers in Jail as ‘Slave Traders’ Rapists’”, new legislation on the sex trade was reported to be on the table aiming to criminalize the purchase of sex in order to restrict prostitution and human trafficking (Sputnik May 21, 2020o). A plot featuring young people who sold sex to make ends meet following Covid-19, during which many lost some or all of their income, was used as an example of the problems Sweden had with its sex market. Connections were made between the selling of sex and the deep dip in the Swedish economy, and hard times were also said to have led to a rise in sugar dating sites and businesses (Sputnik May 22, 2020p).

Pedophilia was another Swedish ill and a problem that was reported as having reached the highest political echelons. As a consequence, it was said that calls had been made for immediate political action. A well-known Center party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) had been found to have a partner who was a pedophile. The affair had prompted the Sweden Democrats (SD) women’s union to demand chemical castration, and this led the plot. The first paragraph read:

The [women’s] union stressed that crimes against children are on the rise and argued that the policy of castrating the culprits is now needed “more than ever before”, citing a 30 percent increase in rapes against children. (Sputnik December 14, 2020u)

The problem identified in the plot, the pedophile scandal, was connected with the solution of chemical castration. The motivation for such measures, according to the Sweden Democrat’s Women’s section, was to keep children safe. To strengthen its argument the section referred to statistics stating that there had been a 30% increase in rapes against children since 2010.

Having been exposed, the MEP was reported as having resigned, and was quoted as stating:

Since my collapse when I reached a dead end, I have been unable to get peace. Everyone says that you should give it a rest, but it is not possible to defend yourself from this. It affects my family and my relatives. (Sputnik December 14, 2020u)

The story portrayed the image of a society lacking ethical rules where no codes of conduct were effective, and where politicians pitied themselves for getting involved with pedophiles and children were increasingly at risk of rape. The SD women were depicted as having had enough, and were positioned as the defenders of children. The Center party leader expressed compassion for her colleague, but the SD women’s section called for radical measures against sex offenders to be implemented immediately, such as the chemical castration of pedophiles, the abolition of statutes of limitations for sexual offences against children, and criminal records to be kept longer than ten years for individuals convicted of sexual offences against children.

Conclusions

The narrative “obsessive gender concerns leading Sweden astray” told how conservative values such as traditional family roles, and mainstream conceptions of femininity, masculinity, and sexuality were being questioned, challenged and at times ridiculed. Gender appeared to have become an obsession, a perspective through which every problem or issue had to be interpreted, even if this meant that facts were ignored, reason set aside, social problems grew, and people suffered. The preoccupations with gender and feminism were connected to a naive idealism that sometimes led the Swedish authorities to ridiculous extremes in striving to remain in line with feminism or gender neutrality. This went hand in hand with depictions of Sweden as an ultra-liberal country where no traditions, conservative values or national interests were sacred. More importantly, they must not stand in the way of the individual’s right to choose his or her lifestyle.

Gender issues and feminist ideas continually gave rise to irreconcilable conflicts, exacerbated by the growing number of Muslims. The instigation of polarization as a storytelling technique of the narrative was frequently noted, in particular as the arguments of the parties to the conflicts were never or rarely met with responses. There seemed to be not enough room for the differing interests raised by gender concerns as traditional values clashed with progressive ambitions, feminist liberal values with Muslim ways of life, young and vulgar women with conservative men, and calls for equality in male-dominated professions came up against women’s weaker physiques. The structure of the narratives with a dividing line between the conflicting parties marked by the word “however”, and the use of emotional language emphasized the polarization.

At the level of individual gender and identity, all this gave rise to increased mental illness—especially among the young. There were instances where gender appeared as a far-fetched and bizarre factor, mainly used to conform to a Swedish obsession and void of all rhyme and reason. In other cases, gender took on a socio-political significance highlighting deep-lying social ills, such as in accounts of discrimination, abuse, harassment, oppressive Muslim traditions, and crime.

Finally, gender was reported on in connection with other topics and narratives that appeared to have little to do with gender issues (this is referred to in the sections on storytelling techniques in Chaps. 1 and 10 as overlaps of themes and narratives). Sputnik or RT might report about a statement made by a political leader, business CEO or a well-known public figure but only briefly contextualize the statement thus making it appear ridiculous or upsetting. There were for example references made to feminist snow removal in Stockholm or suggestions to offer courses on feminism to criminal gang members. Added to this there were news plots that combined seemingly unrelated topics without present any connections between them, such as the difficulty of recruiting women police officers with the increase in gang violence.