Kön i praktiken : En kritisk studie om könskonstruktion i tjej- och killprojekt

• Main Authors: Karlsson, Thereze, Valsten, Joel
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för samhällsvetenskaper, SV 2010
• Subjects: kön; genus; könskonstruktion; särskiljande; könssegregerat; tjejprojekt; killprojekt; unga tjejer; unga killar.; Social work; Socialt arbete
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hik:diva-2520

This composition deals with questions concerning the ongoing construction of gender among personnel in different project for young girls and young boys ( ages 14): its conditions and meanings and how personnel form and mediate gender experience. The aim of this essay is to investigate how gender is made in everyday practise in three projects which address to either young girls or young boys, and to examine how the formation of gender interplays between conceptions among personnel and the practise in the projects. Central questions are: How describes the practical work and the needs of girls and boys in the project? And does the gender-segregated work justified in the projects? Qualitative methods are used to answer these questions. We made qualitative interviews among personnel from three projects, Ellen, Allan and DISA. Ellen and Allan is both part of the "Rädda Barnen" organization in Sweden. Ellen is a group for girls with a feminist/gender equality approach. Allan is a project for boys, also with a gender equality approach. Both Ellen and Allan has the aim to give young girls and boys the opportunity to, by dialogue, discourse and challenge gender-patterns in there everyday life. DISA is a method for girls with the aim to prevent stress and negative thoughts. The method is from the beginning translated and accommodated from a gender-neutral method from USA to a method for young girls in Swedish schools. The method is evaluated on girls but the DISA-project in this study also adopts the method in boy-groups. The empirical material consists of five semi-structured interviews with personnel from the three projects. We have also used fundamental documents such as project plans and manuals in our analysis. Our theoretical framework combines theory of who address tension between gender, normalization and change. Butler’s theory, in which gender is formed through acts, words and gestures, is our main point of departure for understanding the formation of gender. We also adopt a social-constructivism approach in our understanding of gender and in our analysis of the empirical material. In our analysis: we illustrate how gender is made by being incorporated into the practice by personnel performance, and the personnel translation of the projects ideology and documents. The personnel justifications for gender-segregated work is throughout their own definition of girls and boys needs. Sexuality is a prominent theme in both Ellen and Allan and also the most common motive among the personnel to work gender-segregated. The leaders view is that guys and girls can talk about this together in a group. The approach differs between projects. DISA is based on a hard-structured material. A fact which paradoxically means that we do not know much about the project's practice. Ellen and Allan use the dialogue to discuss and contest traditional gender patterns. However, in all projects the dialogue represents a large part of practice. But for girls the unilateral focus on dialogue tend to reproduce the picture of girls' responsiveness and ability to empathetic. Meanwhile the conversation in Allan can become a opportunity for the boys to express themselves verbally in a way they might not be accustomed to. Personnel in Allan and Ellen describe themselves as free to organize and design the group meetings. The needs that the participants express, as well as the practice offers, consolidates the expectations placed on girls and boys. The participants re-create and construct their gender through conversations about violence, sex, relationships, etc. But we have also seen how femininity and masculinity norms are challenged by the way the dialogue is focused on reflexivity and criticism towards gender patterns.