Why is it always a man?

(The following is a debate article, previously published in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.)

If we want to prevent future acts of violence, we must begin asking questions that should be obvious to everyone: Why is it always a man? Why is it always a man who isolates himself and decides to take it upon himself to use extreme gun violence?

Why is it that men are radicalized into seeing the use of deadly violence as a justified method to achieve their goals?

Men are not born violent. Yet there are strong links between the ideals of masculinity and violence.

When boys grow up, they are expected not only to endure being subjected to violence but also to be capable of using violence as a means of resolving conflicts or maintaining their status when necessary. It begins with a form of masculinity that encourages pride, strength, control, silence, independence, hierarchical thinking, and contempt for weakness—which, in the worst cases, leads to isolation, directionless anger, alienation, belief in populist messages, and thoughts of entitlement to retaliate against those they feel have wronged them.

As a society, we tend to offer different explanations for the violence depending on who the offender is.

If the suspect has a foreign background, he is labeled a terrorist—a conscious, calculating, organized, and ideologically motivated individual. A man who ruthlessly seeks to spread fear and to harm our entire society.

But if, as in Örebro, the suspect turns out to be an ethnically Swedish perpetrator, both politicians and the media quickly relay input from relatives and former classmates, describing him as a mentally unstable loner who failed at school and has broken family relationships. The act of gun violence is seen as a societal failure for which we all share responsibility, and it becomes crucial not to speculate about ideological motives or jump to hasty conclusions.

Violence prevention work must always be capable of identifying and weighing all risk factors. We cannot have such double standards.

It’s always a man—and within that simple insight, answers can be found. At the organization MÄN, we know that violence can be prevented by drawing attention to, challenging, and changing the stereotypical norms of masculinity that increase the risk of violence. This is essential if we are to break the connection between masculinity and violence.

It’s natural to feel that what happened in Örebro is inexplicable. But to prevent something similar from happening again, we must seek explanations even in the most obvious cases.

Above all, we must begin implementing the solutions that already exist and work. Merely dealing with the consequences of violence is not enough when there are proven, research-based violence prevention methods ready to be used.

In the long run, knowledge-based violence prevention is the only way forward. Efforts to prevent future acts of violence must be ongoing—for when people have already been affected by violence, it is too late.

A group of boys resorts to violence to resolve their first major conflict in a preschool yard somewhere in Sweden. Another group of boys receives support to develop different skills and learns that there are other ways. As a society, we choose which path is taken. That preschool yard is where we must begin our work.

Anna Lindqvist, Operations Manager at the organization MÄN
Marco Vega, Project Manager and Educator at the organization MÄN

Published on Aftonbladet.se 7/2 2025 (in Swedish)
Listen to a debate on the topic on Studio ett 12/2 2025 (in Swedish)