Sex,Violence,and the Religious “Other”

Abstract

This article examines the gendered portrayals of religion in Scandinavian men’s magazines. Based on verbal and visual material from Slitz, M!, and Mann, focusing on the years 1998 and 2008, the study asks how are gendered ideas of religion and religiosity constructed in Scandinavian men’s magazines? and how can these constructions be interpreted, both in light of the specific contexts of the men’s magazines and broader cultural notions of gender and religion? The findings show that the magazines construct gendered religious subjectivities: the “crazy religious girlfriend” in 1998, the sexualized Christian woman in 2008, and “the bad, patriarchal religious man,” prevalent in both years. This article proposes that the constructions are shaped and informed by dominating cultural ideas of religion and gender, for example, informed by the construction of “the bad Muslim Man” and more specifically set into the gendered scripts on intimate relationships and violence characterizing the new lad discourse.

Keywords

Scandinavian men’s magazines religion the new lad masculinities femininities

Introduction

Research shows that religion is gendered. Indeed, women outscore men on religiosity, and studies observe gender differences in religious experiences and understandings (Mahlamäki 2012; Ozerak 1996; Walter and Davie 1998, 643; Furseth 2006). Women’s accounts of religion tend to emphasize relationality, emotions, and a personal relationship with a caring God (Woodhead 2001, 77–79; Ozerak 1996; Furseth 2006). In contrast, men are said to enhance dogmatic understandings focusing on religion as a source of morality and authority (Furseth 2006). Furthermore, religion is also gendered in how women and men are positioned in different roles. For instance, conservative evangelical Protestantism cultivates patriarchal modes of gender, with male authority and female domesticity (Woodhead 2008, 155). Noninstitutional spirituality, conversely, is said to play to women’s striving for empowerment and independence (Woodhead 2008). These differences highlight how religion is gendered and demonstrate the significance of taking gender into account when studying religion. However, despite the growing literature on gender and religion, few studies have studied the gendering of religion as constructed in secular gendered media sites. The present study aims to help fill this gap by exploring this issue in Scandinavian men’s magazines.

The media is an important source of information on religion, playing a significant role in the (re)production of discourses of religion (Hjarvard 2013). This holds especially true in the Scandinavian context. Although Denmark, Sweden, and Norway’s majority Protestant churches have high membership rates (between 69 percent and 80 percent), Scandinavians—especially men—are held to be among the most secularized populations in the world in terms of religious beliefs and practices (Niemelä and Christensen 2013, 6; Lüchau 2010; Furseth 2010; Mahlamäki 2012, 60). Despite the growing research on the interconnections between media and religion, the relationship between religion, media, and gender—especially masculinities—tends to be ignored (Lövheim 2013a; Coats and Hoover 2013, 142). As men’s magazines produce a gendered space in which the male reader is addressed by virtue of being a (specific type of) man, they represent a particularly interesting site for examining the gendering of religion. The little research that has been conducted indicates the significance of gender in the media’s portrayals of religion. Scandinavian research shows that men’s magazines depict religion as a curiosity, entertainment, and an issue causing conflict (Johnsen 2006; Gresaker 2013; Lundby and Gresaker 2015). In contrast, women’s magazines portray religion as part of their ideal readers’ identity and everyday life (Winell 2009; Gresaker 2013; Lundby and Gresaker 2015).

This article aims to further explore the intersections between media, gender, and religion by connecting perspectives on religion and media with research on men’s magazines and masculinity constructions. Regarding the latter, “the new lad” masculinity construction, which emerged during the 1990s, is pertinent for the magazines analyzed here. The issue is how Scandinavian men’s magazines construct gendered ideas of religion—both verbally and visually—in terms of producing gendered religious subjectivities.

This article first introduces a way to connect religion, media and, gender, and then discusses previous research on men’s magazines focusing on the new lad construction, before explaining the methodology. An elucidation of the magazines which this article analyzes is followed by the analysis of the verbal and visual ways in which the men’s magazines contribute discursively to the gendering of religion. Finally, this article discusses the implications of the findings.

Connecting Religion, Media, and Gender

A significant theme among media and religion scholars is the interrelation between media and religious change proposed in the course of the mediatization thesis (e.g., Hjarvard 2013). The thesis points to the long-term implications of the media’s prominent role, as other institutions, such as religion, have become dependent on the media. The emergence of “a new social and cultural condition in which the power to define and practice religion has been altered” (Hjarvard 2013, 83) is especially prominent in media saturated, late modern societies with low degree of religious activity and religious visibility, such as Scandinavia (Lynch 2011, 205). The concept of media logic¹ suggests that religion is accommodated to and serves the purpose of the media (Hjarvard 2011). Altheide (2004) defines media logic as “the assumptions and processes for constructing messages within a particular medium” (p. 294). The significance of the specific medium’s format involves “‘the codes’ for defining, selecting, organizing, presenting, and recognizing information as one thing rather than another (‘the evening news’ and not a ‘situation comedy,’ or a ‘parody of news’)” (p. 294). Media thus produce, mold, and shape religious imagery according to formats and genre conventions, and thus also alter the ways we perceive and interact with religious issues (Hjarvard 2013). The mediatization of religion takes various forms. If news media frame and define religion in line with secular news values, and fictional genres format religion according to entertaining and exciting narratives (Hjarvard 2013), what aspects direct the men’s magazine in their portrayals of religion?

The present study suggests that gender is a significant part of the men’s magazine’s media logic. This highlights the importance of the gendered discursive scripts and the style that characterize the men’s magazine, including its promotion of certain versions of masculinity. This article assumes that these aspects operate as frames of reference for representing religion (Lövheim 2013c, 186). The concept of media logic has been criticized, however, for overemphasizing the power of the media, as the media always interact with other cultural and political factors (Klaus and Kassel 2005, 337). While this article stresses the men’s magazines’ logic in the framing and shaping of the gendered constructions of religion, it will also account for how wider cultural ideas of religion and gender may contribute to shaping these constructions (Lövheim 2013b, 21; Klaus and Kassel 2005).

Gender differences in religion have occupied scholars for some time. Common themes are how religion structures gender, women’s experiences of and role in religion—and women’s religiosity versus men’s secularity (i.e., how and why religion is gendered; e.g. Mahlamäki 2012; Walter and Davie 1998; Sky 2007). The emergence of feminist studies on religion in the 1960 to 1970s gave rise to critical assessments of the oppression of women in religious contexts (Woodhead 2001; Sky 2007, 19; Avishai, Jafar, and Rinaldo 2015, 8). Later, more nuanced studies emphasizing women’s agency and innovation in religious settings emerged, as well as a focus on individualized forms of religion (King [1995] 2005, 16; Woodhead 2008; Avishai, Jafar, and Rinaldo 2015, 9). The issue of men and religion, however, is scarcely researched. The few exceptions include studies on men in various Christian movements (e.g., Bartkowski 2004; Aune 2010) and secular men (e.g., Furseth 2010). While the scholarship on religion and gender has contributed with important insights, the present study explores how ideas of the connection between religion and gender are established, expressed, and naturalized in the context of the men’s magazine. To this end, the concepts of feminization and masculinization of religion are employed. In the literature on religion and gender, feminization of religion refers to, for instance, women’s domination in and their shaping of religion (see, e.g. Douglas 1978). In the present study, the feminization and masculinization of religion point to the ways in which men’s magazines construct religion in line with what they perceive to be characteristically feminine or masculine (cf. Sky 2007, 69).

Masculinities and Men’s Magazines

Critical studies of men and masculinities point out that masculinity is constructed and expressed in numerous ways, hence there are multiple masculinities (Connell [1995] 2005). Raewyn Connell maintains that masculinity is always a “masculinity-in-relation” ([1995] 2005, 44), in connection with oppositional or complementary masculinities and femininity. Masculinities exist in power relations of hierarchies and exclusion, where a hegemonic masculinity, though “currently accepted,” is credited and legitimized as the ideal masculinity (Connell [1995] 2005, 77–78). Judith Butler ([1990] 1999) assumes a discursive approach to gender, pointing out that gender is a socially regulated performance and not something we have or are in terms of an essential identity. The concept of performativity points to how gendered subjectivities are produced by repeated and stylistic performance (Gill 2007, 71) and naturalized by a hegemonic cultural discourse through a gender order—the heterosexual matrix (Rosenberg 2005, 10). However, the idea of binary, heterosexual sexes/genders itself is a construction, Butler maintains. As gender is an “ongoing discursive practice, it is open to intervention and resignification” (Butler [1990] 1999, 45). Butler’s approach thus covers both the stability and the instability of gender (Lövheim 2013b, 19). Research on media representations of gender has benefited from Butler’s approach by acknowledging the complex and reflexive processes of the production of gendered subjectivities (Benwell 2003b, 8).

The men’s magazine is a significant cultural site, as it represents “one of the few arenas in which masculinity is regularly addressed, discussed and scrutinized” (Benwell 2003c, 156, original italics). The subjectivities “the new man” and the new lad are addressed particularly in research on the men’s magazine and give rise to discussions on the changing masculinities in late modern societies (Benwell 2003a; Jackson, Stevenson, and Brooks 2001; Gill 2007, 204–17). Such changes are explained by their connection to gender and sexual politics and by the development of the marketing and consumer culture. In the 1990s, the arrival of the new lad signaled a shift from a feminist influenced masculinity, the new man, to a reflexive traditional masculinity (Benwell 2003b, 13). The new lad is described as “hedonistic, post- (if not anti-) feminist, and preeminently concerned with beer, football and ‘shagging’ women” (Gill 2003, 37). The new lad magazines are generally seen as contradictory and articulating ambiguity (Benwell 2003b, 21–22). One characteristic is the “new sexism discourse” that emerges out of legitimating male power and reasserting a “natural” gender order, though in a manner that offers a strategic disclaimer for their sexism, exposed, for example, through an excessive use of irony and sarcasm (Benwell 2003b, 20–21, 2004). Some have argued that the new lad magazines’ overt focus on women as sexual objects—despite the ironic mode—is a sign of a backlash against feminism, a kind of retro-sexism (Whelehan 2000). Gill (2007, 254), however, suggests that this is not a return to the old patriarchy, but points to a postfeminist register, incorporating feminist notions alongside pre- or antifeminist ideas.

During the 1990s, several magazines evoking the discourse of the new lad emerged on the Scandinavian market. Considering the dominant discourses of gender equality and the new man in alignment with the ideal of the caring father in the Scandinavian countries (Johansson and Klinth 2008; Brandth and Kvande 2003), the articulation of the new lad attests to a kind of countercultural masculinity suggestively based on a “reflexive nostalgia of masculinity” (Langeland 2011). It is within this context—the laddism inspired magazines Slitz, M!, and Mann which are situated within the proximate, secular settings of Scandinavia—that this article sets out to examine the gendering of religion. More specifically, the article asks how are gendered ideas of religion and religiosity constructed in Scandinavian men’s magazines? and how can these constructions be interpreted, both according to the specific media context of the men’s magazine and in light of broader cultural notions of gender and religion? The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussions on the interrelations between gender, religion, and the media by exploring the intertwinements of religion and gender as mediatized in gendered popular culture.

Methodology

Data

The study is based on material from three Scandinavian men’s magazines: M! (Denmark), Slitz (Sweden), and Mann (“Man,” Norway). These magazines can be regarded as equivalent counterparts in terms of target readership and are leading magazines for their readership segment. Slitz (relaunched 1996) describes their typical reader as a man “who enjoys sports, booze, clothes, travel and bars” ( Slitz 1998c, #11, 10), M! (launched in 1997) aims at “Danish men with their inner lad intact” (Benjamin Media 2010), and Mann’s (launched in 1996) target reader is “the modern, confident, and active man” (Egmont Hjemmet Mortensen 2010). In terms of circulation (2008), M! and Slitz sell more copies (45,799 and 32,600) than Mann (16,665).² The magazines are described in more detail below.

The material analyzed consists of selected texts from the 1998 and 2008 magazine volumes and enables an examination of potential changes and continuities concerning the gendering of religion. The data range represents important points of reference in terms of marking the early period of the magazine masculinity of the new lad in Scandinavia and its expressions ten years later. Furthermore, the data range also points to changes regarding religion. For instance, nonbelieving Norwegian men are increasing in number (Urstad 2010, 63), and so is religious diversity, with Muslims being the largest minority group in Scandinavia (Niemelä and Christensen 2013, 6). Although the material enables an analysis of possible differences due to national characteristics, this is not pertinent to the analysis here. The Scandinavian countries share many similarities when it comes to gender politics, masculinity ideals, and religion, as noted. The emphasis here is on how the construction of the new lad possibly shapes and informs the gendered portrayals of religion, an examination for which this data is a suitable source.

Analytical Procedure

As the aim of the study was to explore Scandinavian men’s magazines’ constructions of gendered portrayals of religion, a qualitative content analysis focusing on verbal and visual resources was conducted. The first step involved studying the magazines’ self-descriptions, front pages, editorials, and texts addressing gender and sexuality to detect the ideal masculinity promoted. As noted, the assumption is that the ideal masculinity operates as the magazines’ main discourse, serving the conventions of the genre and referring to a set of ideas that shapes the ways in which the world is perceived and talked about in these magazines (Gauntlett [2002] 2008, 18). The second step of the analysis was a systematic reading of the magazines’ texts on religion (N = 186, 1998, n: 94 and 2008, n: 92), based on the following definition of religion: “(…) peoples’ relation to universes of ideas that are characterized by communication about and with hypothetical gods and powers” (Gilhus and Mikaelsson 2001, 29).³ This definition refers to both “traditional,” institutional religion and noninstitutional religion, including spirituality (e.g., astrology and reincarnation).

The examination led to some key findings. Religion is mentioned/discussed in about three texts per magazine issue on average. Rather than constituting the main theme, religion is predominantly incorporated into other typical men’s magazines’ topics such as sex, violence, and sports and often appears in reviews on games and films. Christianity, the “referral” religion, dominates the religion coverage in all magazines both years, while Islam increases in M!. Elements from different religions/spiritualities are also included relatively often. A prominent finding is how the magazines mainly take on an outside perspective on religion and exclude religiosity in the construction of the male identity of their ideal audience. Consequently, religiosity marks the boundary between the constructed “we” and the different groups of religious others (e.g., marked by femininity, ethnicity, etc.). The magazines tend to construct religious women as a universal phenomenon and religious men as a contextual-bound phenomenon situated in specific places/cultures. Instead of generalizing about all the portrayals of religion in these magazines, the aim of the study is to analyze in depth the typical gender specific forms of religiosity. The selected analyzed texts show how the magazines explicitly and implicitly connect gender and religion. This entails the ways in which the magazines give rise to feminization and, in contrast, masculinization of religion, meaning the construction of religiosity or religiosities as shaped according to qualities/functions perceived as feminine and as masculine.

Moreover, an analysis of the visual imagery accompanying the texts was undertaken. The analysis of the images focused on the information linking images and verbal texts (Van Leeuwen 2005, 229–30): whether the text and image are contrasts or complementary by virtue of something new being adding (extension) or whether the elements that are most important for creating meaning are specified or explained in the other (elaboration).

Laddism in Slitz, M!, and Mann

Here I will highlight key areas in the three analyzed magazines Slitz, M!, and Mann. Although the magazines draw on several occasionally contradictory masculinity discourses—which show their hybridity—they tend to cultivate a certain masculine positioning in terms of an ideal masculinity. This ideal masculinity draws distinctly on the new lad construction emphasized in previous research noted above (Benwell 2003a; Jackson, Stevenson, and Brooks 2001).

The New Lad: Slitz, M!, and Mann

“Are you a man or a mouse?” Slitz asks “Sweden’s great men” throughout its 1998 issues (1998a, #1, 25). “A man” is defined by his capability to win a fight, has enjoyed sex with more than fifty women, has been banished from a soccer match, and has consumed a king-sized bottle of booze on his own during a single night. This sets the tone and largely summarizes the ingredients in Slitz and M! and to some extent Mann. The magazines center on action-packed content, portraying violence and risky activities, sports, “how-to” manuals—often sex-related, celebrity portraits, gadgets, and explicit images of women combined with grooming and fashion tips. This is predominantly reported in a style advocating that readers should not to take life too seriously, employing devices such as irony, sarcasm, and an overtly jocular tone. Although Mann is promoted as a magazine for “the modern, urban and active man” (Egmont Hjemmet Mortensen 2010) with the strapline “For men who can read,” which alludes to a more sophisticated masculinity construction, Mann draws distinctively upon features from the laddish discourse. Yet, this is done in a slightly more sober manner than in Slitz and M!. Whereas Slitz and M! feature scantily dressed glamour models on their covers reminiscent of soft porn esthetics, Mann highlights semi-clothed female celebrities. Still, recurrent themes in all three magazines are risky behavior and the education of the readers about women and sex through a discourse of sexual difference. For instance, Mann provides instructions on how to understand women (1998b, #2, 76–78), Slitz informs the reader about “how you can turn from being a monk into being a player” (2008b, #5, 1), while M! goes a bit further by giving advice on how to buy sex (1998b, #8, 72–75). The magazines also warn readers about specific types of women and advise them on how to enjoy their independence. In 1998, Slitz disseminated its seemingly misogynist attitude in several editorials. What critics interpret as male chauvinism, the editor says, is “small fits of laddishness”—meant to be humorous. The editor further underlines that the magazine’s celebration of “the other gender’s sexiness does not exclude that we are also positive to their obvious rights in society” ( Slitz 1998b, #1, 8). This refers to the new sexism discourse, which is strategically used as a disclaimer of the posed critique (Benwell 2003b, 20–21). It also demonstrates an intentional mixing of feminist and antifeminist notions, representing a postfeminist discourse (Gill 2007, 269).

In 2008, Slitz and M! appear to be even more distinct in their laddishness by intensifying their sexual content and the use of rhetorical devices such as irony, sarcasm, and hyperbole (e.g., “We’ve never had problems in bed. NEVER. (…),” “Do you think that hot girl sex is an awful thing? Then for god’s sake don’t read about Sandra’s naughty night with her lesbian girlfriend” [ M! 2008a, #127, 1, 2008b, #130, 8]). M! also enhances action-filled content, for instance, demonstrated by its inclusion of a “giant gun test,” promoted on the front page as “[going] berserk with guns” (2008c, #123, 1).

Generally, these magazines offer a window on the various ways by which they highlight versions of preferable, compared to nonpreferable, masculinity, and how they discursively construct the distinctions between masculinity and femininity. These aspects will be important in the following sections where I will explore the gendering of Slitz, M!, and Mann’s portrayals of religion. The analysis is in two parts: the first explores how the magazines contribute to the feminization of religion, and the second examines how they give rise to the masculinization of religion.

The Feminization of Religion

As noted, Slitz, Mann, and M! tend to portray religiosity as a common female quality. Indeed, M! (1998c, #8, 35) portrays attendance at lectures by a guru within the so-called holistic astroculture as a typical female activity, and, in Mann, readers meet women who believe in zodiac signs and in God (e.g., 1998a, #5, 67, 1998e, #3, 48, 2008b, #128, 51). Still, within the spectrum of religious feminine subjectivities, the feminization of religion is predominantly expressed through two distinct representations. Present in the 1998 publications is the construction of the female religious subjectivity as mentally distressed and possibly harmful. In 2008, feminine religiosity is constructed as inherently sexualized and desired, representing the very idea of the forbidden fruit. Female religiosity is thus represented in ambiguous ways. Generally, these portrayals demonstrate how the magazines integrate religion into the laddish scripts on heterosexual sex and the risks and pleasures of intimate relationships.

1998: “Beware! Your Religious Girlfriend Is Crazy”

In 1998, the religious woman is exposed through a subjectivity that I have termed “the crazy religious woman.” This construction posits women’s religiosity as a symptom and a cause of mental illness.⁴ It further points to the ostensibly fragile position of men, ascribing women the (physical) power over men in intimate relationships.

M! (1998d, #5, 28–29) constructs a seemingly “natural” connection between mental illness and spiritual convictions through the representation of “the super disturbed woman.” The super disturbed woman constantly talks about her “energy” and, in M!’s sarcastic description of reincarnation, she “often believes she was a lesbian dolphin in a previous life.” M! evaluates a variety of female subjectivities, including “the super disturbed” and renders a verdict on who “offers the best sex.” M! sets the tone by introducing women and men as fundamentally different when it comes to sex. The male authorial voice confidently states that “We’re simple. We never disappoint. Even in a drunken stupor we’re able to raise the flagpole and say ‘hip hurrah!’.” In contrast, “women are capricious,” M! sarcastically declares. Indeed, “At the disco she might act as the very creator of lust—and then when she’s lying in bed it’s like doing the missionary with a leaky Lolita doll.” “The super disturbed woman,” however, is appraised as “tremendously fascinating in bed” because of the way she transfers her insanity to sexual relationships. Yet, M! warns the readers, “you have to settle for a one-time fuck!,” as “she is completely disconnected from this world (…).”

In a somewhat similar vein, Slitz constructs a correspondence between mental illness and female religiosity through the representation of “the crazy girlfriend.” This is done by means of the test “Is your girlfriend crazy?” ( Slitz 1998d, #12, 71–74), in which Slitz guides readers through a variety of topics related to their girlfriends’ behavior and personality traits. Slitz connects an assortment of religious and spiritual beliefs to destructive and violent behavior, reported in a sarcastic tone. For instance, if the girlfriend is always carrying a new age book—together with Prozac and knives—in her bag, wears an upside-down cross, “spits out your sperm on your breast and ‘paints’ a pentagram with it,” and believes that “the end is near”—then “your girlfriend’s undoubtedly stark raving mad, but you probably knew that already.” The very idea of danger is related to the subjectivity of the religious woman who displays violent traits, while the man is portrayed as a potential victim. This is elaborated on in the photos accompanying the test, which show a woman and a man in different situations, yet with one common feature: the woman physically attacks the apparently terrified man. She has an intense look in her eyes while holding a knife against the man’s neck and face, pouring acid on his body, ironing his forehead, rendering him passive and helpless. These photos have a narrative function in the way they vary from “the crazy religious woman’s” attacks to the last photo showing the man lying on the floor with a lifeless, fixed gaze. Interestingly, the props used as weapons are domestic appliances (a kitchen knife and an iron), signifying the housewife’s domestic femininity. The photos play with the notion of domestic violence, though by reversing the typical power relation between the genders with the woman being the perpetrator and the man the victim.

One might object that “the crazy religious woman” is about constructing stereotypes of femininity rather than the gendering of religion.⁵ The argument put forth here is that, through the representation of the crazy religious woman, the magazines make religion part of such stereotypes. Indeed, adhering to spiritual and religious beliefs and practices demonstrate, from the magazines’ view, a female irrationality gone overboard.

All in all, the subjectivity of the crazy religious woman constitutes the threat and the problem for men, pointing to the fear of the feminine (Jackson, Stevenson, and Brooks 2001, 86) and the dangers of intimate relationships due to the unpredictability of women (cf. Rogers 2005). It also symbolizes men’s lack of control and thus signals the fragility of masculinity. Even so, the magazines do not question masculinity but arguably imply instead that it is the very subjectivity of the religious woman that is problematic and not the male subject.

2008: “Forgive Me Father, for I Have Sinned”

In 2008, female religiosity is made sense of in terms of representing the forbidden fruit, which alludes to men’s sexual fantasies. The construction of the sexualized and desired female religiosity is represented through celebrity Catholic models (from other parts of the world) and the “ordinary” (Scandinavian) Protestant girl. Although these represent two different denominations of Christianity, they do share many similarities, as we will see.

The representation of the celebrity Catholic model emerges through articles in which the introductory texts highlight her irresistible sexuality:

There’s something special with Catholic girls, and Adriana Lima is possibly the hottest of them all. ( Mann 2008a, #133, 17)

Sophie Howard: The living proof that Catholic school girls hide both this and that under the school uniform. ( Slitz 2008c, #2, 94)

Most prominent is the visual imagery of these models which foregrounds femininity as a sexual bodily property. Lima and Howard pose in rather revealing positions showing their semi-nude, tanned bodies, and both seemingly effortlessly barely hide (parts of) their breasts. In Mann, the mysterious yet daring looking model Adriana Lima poses on the beach with sand strategically placed on her body. In Slitz, model Sophie Howard is situated in more intimate settings: posing in a bedroom-like setting, with a fire, and standing in front of the bathtub with her hand touching the glass partition separating her from us, the viewers. Howard looks directly into the eyes of the beholder, us, creating a visual form of direct address. As her gaze belies inquisitiveness, surprise, and daring, these acts evoke different reactions from the viewers (Kress and Van Leeuwen [1996] 2006, 117–18), yet all of them are arguably sexually suggestive. The use of black and white as the common colors signals the contrast between purity and the suggestive temptation of the soiled. This contrast marks the exhilarating idea of Catholic femininity. Indeed, according to Slitz, “Howard is the proof that sexual frustration is hidden beneath the chastity belt which is just waiting to be unleashed in the bed chamber” (#2). Men’s attraction to and fantasies of Catholic femininity are allegedly related to the idea of sexuality as something forbidden and disclosed, and therefore bursting with unreleased sexual urges. The images link to the verbal texts by elaborating and giving hints of ultimate sexual pleasure—through the sexualization of the feminine body—which the Catholic woman potentially can provide.

Since Catholicism signifies “strict discipline,” as stated in Slitz, it disciplines and controls sexual behavior and represses sexual desire. As Mann sarcastically comments about the “Dream woman” Adriana Lima: “God must have been in an ironic corner when he created Lima and made her a devout Catholic. Lima, namely, claims that she’s still a virgin because ‘sex belongs to marriage’” (Mann 2008, #133, 17). This exhorts, as implied in Mann and explicitly phrased in Slitz (and M! 2008d #124, 69), the Catholic woman to break free from religion and liberate her feminine sexuality. Indeed, Slitz describes how Howard “got tired” of Catholicism’s authoritative dogma and changed from being a “chaste Catholic schoolgirl” to becoming an “adventurous wildcat.” It is also the feminine subjectivity of the “adventurous wildcat” which is stressed in the text. The readers learn that stripping “is an art I [Howard] master well,” that she does a “fantastic lap dance,” and Howard’s assertions of sex entail that “one should try everything at least once.” Through Howard, Slitz constructs two distinct representations of the sexualized feminine subjectivity. On the one hand, Howard represents the Catholic woman who is a sexual object for men to desire. On the other, Howard represents the self-empowered femininity of the woman as the desiring sexual subject. This alteration from being an object of male desire to becoming a desiring sexual subject is a pivotal theme in postfeminist media (Gill 2007, 258–59) and is partly a result of feminism and sexual liberation (Harvey and Gill 2011, 56). However, Gill maintains that while this might signal female empowerment, it may be argued that it manifests how “the objectifying male gaze is internalized (…)” (2007, 258).

The proliferation of the woman as the sexually desiring subject is also revealed in texts featuring the ordinary Protestant (and Scandinavian) woman. She is represented through Slitz and M!’s versions of the genre “women revealing their secrets,” centering on women’s accounts of sexual desires and experiences. In Slitz, the column entitled “Confessions!” is introduced as “Informative letters from the female readership.” Here, “the good girl” reveals her “most awful yet so wonderful” sexual experiences under the heading “Forgive me Father, for I have sinned!” ( Slitz 2008a, #12, 113), recalling the liturgical formulary that initiates the Catholic rite of confessing sins. The text is presented as a first-person narrative and is not accompanied by an image, presenting the text as a credible confidential confession. “The good girl” reveals that she was raised in a religiously active family that always attended church at Christmas. This time she brings her irreligious boyfriend to church just to discover that the planned service has been canceled. Her boyfriend jokingly suggests that they should have sex inside the church, insisting that “God has given us bodies so we can use them.” “The good girl” first refuses. But then,

I caved in and had sex in God’s house. And Satan, how good it was … I rode him right there on the floor just a few meters from the crucifix. It was so obvious that I was breaking a very important taboo, but that’s why it felt so good. He came inside me after 15 minutes, but that didn’t stop me. I wanted more so after a while we went for a second round, this time he took me against the organ. Occasionally it howled so I jokingly started to sing ‘Jesus loves the little children,’ after which we laughed like maniacs. As the laughter died I actually got a bit anxious, so we broke off the act and went home. ( Slitz 2008a, #12, 113)

“The good girl” ends her story by asking rhetorically: “Do you still think I’ll go to heaven?” With its detailed description of the sex act, the narrative draws upon conventions from pornography. The antagonism between “sinful” sexual behavior and Protestant morality is frequently underlined by juxtaposing details from the sex act with symbols of Protestantism, such as the idea of the church as a sacred, unspoiled space, the singing of the Christian hymn, and the use of the term “Satan” when evaluating the sex act. The narrator draws the distinctive line between being a “bad girl” who performs “sinful” sexual behavior and being a “good girl” who behaves according to Protestant standards. This distinction is pointed out in research on Canadian Protestant women, which shows that notions of “good” versus “bad” actions function as authoritative normative values which inform and control Christian women’s sexuality (Sharma 2008, 75). However, the good girl’s hesitation is arguably more about having sex inside the church and less about having sex. This illustrates a discrepancy from the otherwise rather similar representation of the Catholic celebrity models.

These constructions of the sexualized religious femininity are expressions of traditional male fantasies, yet combined with postfeminist ideas of sexually liberated women who take charge of their sexual desires. Framed within the new lad script, Christian femininity turns into something men consume, as the very incarnation of men’s fantasies of femininity as a sexual bodily property. Although constituting a sexualized object for male desire and the male gaze, female religiosity is simultaneously constructed as something that regulates, manages, and constrains sexual behavior. While the magazines imply the disciplining power religion has over female sexuality, they do not explicitly address religious dogma as expressions of patriarchal systems. This issue is evident in the ways the magazines contribute to the masculinization of religion, which is addressed in the next section.

The Masculinization of Religion

Mann, M!, and Slitz’ discursive constructions of the masculinization of religion point to religion as authoritative dogma. A consistent feature in both 1998 and 2008 is how “fundamentalist” religious systems, which ostensibly justify violence and patriarchal ideas, are represented through the religious man. He is constructed as problematic and deviant, as inherently brutal and representing an illegitimate form of power over women. In the following sections, I will discuss two aspects that characterize masculinized religion, violence, and patriarchy, separately, although they occasionally intertwine in the magazines’ constructions.

“Religious Men Kill …”

A recurrent portrayal of masculinized religion is religious beliefs and dogmas as catalysts for violence, terror, and ultimately death. Although gender in some instances is not explicitly made a point in the texts on religion and violence, the magazines arguably still construct a naturalized connection between religion, violence, and an overtly aggressive masculinity. This is exposed through an overemphasis on violent male Muslims, Christians, and various “sect” leaders. Murderous (and sexually abusive) sect leaders, Mann proclaims, “are nearly always, without exception, men.” “This has to do with exercise of authority, manipulation techniques, and macho tendencies. It’s a way of displaying masculinity” ( Mann 2008c, #128, 58). M! has a particularly strong representation of what we may call “the bad religious man,” here drawing on the concept of “the bad Muslim” (Maira 2009; Mamdani 2004) in relation to the United States’ war on terror discourse post-September 11. Maira sees the construction of the “Bad Muslim” as a mode of cultural citizenship for American Muslims, produced by the government and the media by showing the Bad Muslim as constituting a potential terror threat and being an enemy of the state. In M!, the bad religious man is prevalent in both 1998 and 2008—although having a somewhat stronger presence in the latter year and is not merely confined to the category of the Muslim. Instead, M! states that “By far the most terror in the world arises out of religious fanaticism. Both among Muslims, Christians, and most other religions there are extremists who believe that violence is a perfectly okay way to spread their message” ( M! 2008e, #122, 67). In marking religious subjectivity as bad, “extremist,” or “fanatic,” M! underlines the very execution of brutal killings by portraying dramatic action scenes caused by religious men, realized both verbally and visually (e.g., “The bomb exploded during a concert,” “deadly sarin gas [was spread] in five different underground trains,” and “he tortured and terrorized the population until they either escaped or converted to Christianity” [ M! 2008e, #122, 67–69, 2008f, #129, 56]). The visual imagery elaborates the brutality of religion by showing men armed with weapons, burning buildings, and various death scenes including dead bodies. Most of these are seemingly “real-life” documentary photographs, allegedly confirming the truthfulness of the brutality of religiosity—and highlighting the causality between the bad religious man, the execution of violent actions, and the resulting death of innocent people. An interesting but perhaps not surprising aspect is that while the verbal texts cast various religions as the origin of brutality, it is often the Muslim man who is visually portrayed. This implicates the Muslim man as the very representation of deviant or bad religious masculinity. An image ( M! 2008e, #122, 66) shows a boy wearing an Arab scarf pointing his weapon directly at us and thus positions us as possible victims of religious terror. Another photograph depicts two Muslim men sitting in the desert with their eyes closed gently holding the Koran, praying. Placed in front of them, right in the center of attention, is a Kalashnikov rifle. Mann (1998d, #8, 56–57) also serves this rather stereotypical representation of the Muslim man, displayed through a photo of two Muslim-looking men with a firm grip on their Kalashnikovs.

Generally, the construction of religious masculinity and its violent traits is framed as deviant in the men’s magazines, indeed constituting “the other” in terms of positioning a subordinated and disapproved form of masculinity. As Consalvo (2003, 33) notes, violence may be a legitimated attribute of heroic masculinity by performing “justified killings,” such as saving the world (or the girl). Men who exercise “unjustified killings” are conversely perceived as deviant, as in stark contrast to “the normal” or the hegemonic masculinity.

There are also examples of how the men’s magazines ironically play with the construction of the religious fanatic man by inviting the readers to engage in religious violence. M! sarcastically presents countries the readers can go to on a “death adventure” ( M! 1998a, #6, 70). The destination of Afghanistan is promoted as an ideal destination for “the very experienced adventurer”: “you are guaranteed a unique experience in this patchwork of holy warriors, old blood feuds, and strange Muslim laws—if you get out alive, that is.” M! recommends “gear for the dangerous holiday,” including a “bulletproof vest (…) which can handle the bullets from the most widespread hand weapon—the Kalashnikov rifle” and “needle resistant gloves (…) which enable you to hold a knife without cutting yourself.” Interestingly, these props point to, on the one hand, how M! interpellates the male readers into passive observers of the “religious craziness.” On the other hand, it proposes the interpellation of the readers as ready to jump in on the death-causing action by putting on the performative subjectivity of “the bad Muslim man.” As such, this demonstrates M!’s ambiguous positioning, using an ironic mode, between fascination, ridicule, and disapproval of violent, masculine religiosity.

In sum, religious convictions which lead to violence and killings are arguably mainly disapproved of and ridiculed in these magazines, as is the aggressive and irrational religious masculine subjectivity they presuppose. Religion plays the pivotal role in “the bizarre world” of the masculine others, constructed as different from the ideal readers’ self-understandings (Benwell 2004, 5).

“… and Repress Women”

The magazines also disclaim the authoritative religious man, who represents patriarchal ideas and subsequently represses women. The subjectivity of the patriarchal religious man is represented in both 1998 and 2008 (although those presented here are mainly from 1998). Here, several religions are addressed as well, even though different aspects are highlighted.

Mann asks rhetorically in 1998 (1998d, #8, 57) under the heading “The Taliban: The true face of Islam?”: “Public stoning of women who are suspected of adultery. (…) Should we even try to understand the Afghan regime?” Mann refers to the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar who seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 and says, “His opponents claim that he interprets both the Qur’an and the ancient sharia law in a completely insane way, especially in relation to women’s rights.” Mann sarcastically argues that this replicates “the writings in the Old Testament, good, old Christianity. We’re talking stoning, hanging, tearing, burning, and severed hands.” As such, Mann compares Omar’s aims to remasculinize and repatriarchalize (cf. Krondorfer 2007, 2) the Afghan society to “old” Christian ideas. As implied by Mann, such ideas belong to the premodern world and should by no means be reinstated. The examples of the Taliban’s repression of women largely involve pushing them out of public life and making the burqa mandatory. Similar imagery of Muslim men’s power over Muslim women is addressed in M!, this time in 2008 (2008g, #132, 72) and with the Pakistani village of Darra Adam Khel as the location. M!’s reporters comment on the absence of women in the streets to the locals, who respond:

Women? They belong in the home, not on the street.” Eye contact with a man is considered a crime and punished by beating. Adultery is punished by death. “Darra isn’t Peshawar or Islamabad where women speak to a man in public, or even run around without the burqa,” Jamahl explains. “Around here, a man who doesn’t control his wife is known as a man without a penis.

These presentations largely replicate the findings in other studies that point to the binary constructions of the subjectivity of “the bad Muslim”—as an uncivilized form of masculinity, and the subjectivity of “the oppressed Muslim woman” in need of rescue (Maira 2009, 641; Cooke 2002; Razack 2008). These subjectivities constitute a crucial part of the Western public discourse, both in 1996 when the Taliban seized power (Cooke 2002, 227), and especially in the aftermath of 9/11. The veiling of Muslim women, the burqa, symbolizes the very reason for their need to be liberated (Klaus and Kassel 2005; Cooke 2002). The burqa as the symbol of the repressed Muslim woman is also visually highlighted in Mann. While the article’s accompanying photos otherwise portray Muslim men, a small photo shows a fully covered woman. The portrayal of “the oppressed Muslim woman” demonstrates how the magazines base their reasoning on an egalitarian gender ideal by repudiating “the bad Muslim man” as the oppressor who represents old patriarchal ideas.

In contrast, when the magazines cover religions which allow polygamy, they reveal a different and arguably more ambivalent view. “Polygamy: A dream or a nightmare?” This question is posed by Mann (1998c, #7, 24) in an article on an American group of Mormons which practices polygamy. The question is a direct address to readers, and exposes an ambivalence which suggestively and ironically plays with, on the one hand, the idea of men’s libido as insatiable, thus men need several women to keep them sexually satisfied, while on the other hand, polygamy is also a potential nightmare for men because dealing with several women is hard work. Both of these notions arguably draw on a traditional masculinity discourse, yet the ironic tone may suggest that instead of celebrating such a masculinity, the magazines make fun of it (and thus themselves; cf. Benwell 2003c, 2004). Though Mann elaborates on men’s fantasy of the access to many women in the visual imagery, the sexual implication is absent. Instead, the photos of the Mormon group signify the unity of a caring and loving family by showing two men surrounded by women—all smiling and holding hands, and mark the man as the patriarch by placing him in the center. Despite this seemingly idyllic scenery, the text functions as an extension by constructing the Mormons as deviant. Whereas the Mormons voice rejection of the idea that they hold orgies and assert that having many wives is a “big responsibility for the man,” Mann’s critical stance on the patriarchal system practiced by “the religious fanatics” is prominent. An example is Mann’s concluding question to a Mormon: “But if this arrangement works so well for all parties, why can’t women have more than one husband? Randy Maudsley has a clear answer—Because it’s God’s will. I didn’t make the rules. They come from above.” As such, the Mormons legitimize the relation between the genders as directed by God, while Mann repudiates their “religious fanaticism” exposed through what they see as men’s illegitimate patriarchal power over women.

In Slitz (1998e, #6, 110), however, polygamy is predominantly framed in sexual terms and the (jocular) aspiration of becoming a polygamist is even more distinct. Here a reader asks the featured expert on religion, a clergy, which religions allow men to have several wives. The heading (“Can I have several wives?”) excludes religion. Accompanying the question is an image from the film The People vs. Larry Flynt (directed by Milos Forman 1996), which centers on the life of a pornography publisher, exhibiting Flynt holding his arms around three women with revealing deep cleavages. Subsequently, the image elaborates the verbal text by framing marriage as sexual relations and promotes the idea that multiple wives signify multiple sex partners. The implication is that choosing the right religion benefits the man (here: Slitz’ reader), as it legitimizes male sexual promiscuity (which, however, the clergy strongly disapproves).

Overall, although the magazines mostly evoke a discourse of gender egalitarianism and construct a clear distance between themselves and oppressive, religious masculinity, there is a disparity in the magazines’ positioning on the constructions of the Muslim man and the religious, polygamous man. This is demonstrated in how the magazines, though through creating an ironic distance, position the male reader into the world of the polygamist. The magazines playfully oscillate between a traditional masculinity discourse and an egalitarian gender discourse, and alternate between self-referentiality (all men want plenty of sex) and an othering (but religious-based polygamy is taking it too far). Such ambiguous responses and the suggestively strategic oscillation between prefeminist and feminist discourses underpin that the magazines can be understood as postfeminist (cf. Benwell 2003a; Gill 2007).

Conclusion

The findings in this study propose that religion in Scandinavian men’s magazines is mostly constructed by representing authoritative patriarchal dogma and norms, and mainly reveals continuity between 1998 and 2008. The examples expose an irreligious, male narratorial perspective. This suggests that the gendered portrayals of religion are formed by a secular viewpoint, which is said to characterize the Scandinavian male populations (Furseth 2010). Women’s magazines, on the other hand, tend to normalize religion (seemingly without the use of irony), especially spirituality, by adapting religious aspects into women’s magazines’ journalism on, for instance, self-improvement (Winell 2009; Gresaker 2013; Lundby and Gresaker 2015). (Scandinavian) News media, however, also operate according to secular values or frameworks, for instance, in how they critique religious beliefs or practices when they collide with gender equality issues (Hjarvard 2013, 89; Døving and Kraft 2013). Still, there are significant differences between the men’s magazines’ and the news media’s secular take on religion; whereas the latter functions as “a secular watchdog” (Døving and Kraft 2013, 10) with objectivity as an ideal, the former seemingly has as its mission the promotion of entertaining stories about the “weirdness” of religion in our world.

The men’s magazines studied here reproduce a common male perception of religion, a focus on morality and power (Furseth 2006, 304). Feminized perceptions of religion centered on relationality, emotions, and religion as a source of meaning are, however, absent (Ozerak 1996; Woodhead 2001; Furseth 2006). This finding supports previous research on men’s magazines’ coverage of religion and shows that ideas of masculinity direct the representations of religion (Johnsen 2006). This is in contrast to research on women’s magazines which concludes that religion here is addressed as an integral part of everyday life and identity (Winell 2009; Gresaker 2013; Lundby and Gresaker 2015).

The men’s magazines mainly construct religion and religiosity as “otherness”—by constituting a disparity from the magazines’ mediated community of secular readers. The emphasis on the bizarre “otherness” is argued to contribute to “normalizing a reader’s sense of himself” (Benwell 2004, 5, 2003b, 17–18). In the magazines, this otherness entails different aspects and is exposed in different degrees, yet a general characteristic is that religion produces gendered subjectivities that are evaluated as (too) violent, irrational, patriarchal, or chaste. Still, the magazines simultaneously, on some level, make the religious subjectivities relevant to the male ideal reader (although through an ironic positioning): the crazy religious woman could be his girlfriend (if he does not watch out); the Christian sexualized woman is in his hottest dreams; he plays with the idea of going on a killing spree with religious fanatics; and he could consider joining a religion in order to have sex with many women.

The magazines’ gendered constructions of religion draw upon dominating notions of gender and religion prevailing in the wider culture (which are, however, often produced and framed by the media). An example is the connection between women and spiritual beliefs, expressed through the “crazy spiritual girlfriend” in 1998, which reflects the increasing interest in spirituality among women (Heelas and Woodhead 2005), and its prevalence in popular culture and lifestyle practices (e.g., Gilhus and Mikaelsson 1998). The men’s magazines replicate this trend, although by treating spiritual convictions as a symptom and the very definition of female irrationality at its worst.

The findings on Muslim subjectivities support other studies, showing that Muslims are stereotypically represented in Western news media and popular culture, demonstrating the media’s “power to define and frame religion” (Hjarvard 2013, 87). Indeed, the portrayal of Muslims as being the other, with Muslim men being fundamentalists and the veiled Muslim women being oppressed, is found to be prevalent (Knott, Poole, and Taira 2013, 28,⁶ 89; Maira 2009, 641; Cooke 2002; Klaus and Kassel 2005). Research suggests that Islam and Muslims are singled out as particularly problematic (e.g., in contrast to some forms of Christianity [e.g., Døving and Kraft 2013]). An interesting aspect of Scandinavian men’s magazines, however, is that “othering” and the construction of religion as problematic affect not only the representations of Muslims but most religion—though in different variations (and, as noted, not without making connections to the world of the “new lad”). An exception is perhaps the men’s magazines’ more ambiguous treatment of the sexualized Christian woman, signaling a certain acceptance of Christianity as it (Protestantism) constitutes the cultural backdrop in Scandinavia and thus represents familiarity.

Certain gendered religious subjectivities are absent in the men’s magazines. Two such examples are the sexualized Muslim woman and the (“normal,” Scandinavian) spiritual man. This finding suggests that mediatization prioritizes some representations of religion (Winston 2013), while others not only are absent but seem impossible in the men’s magazines.

The analysis shows that the media logic of men’s magazines informs and shapes constructions of the feminization and masculinization of religion. First, the expressions of female religious subjectivities are integrated into the heteronormative laddish scripts characterized by the fears and pleasures of intimate relationships, focusing on the nature of gendered differences and sexualized representations of women as the incarnation of men’s fantasies. The same can be said about male religious subjectivities, and how they are framed in terms of laddish scripts focusing on action and violence—and again: sex.

Second, the extensive use of irony and sarcasm contributes to making the gendered religious constructions and the magazines’ responses to them ambiguous and contradictory. For instance, M’s invitation to readers to join “the bad Muslim man” on his killing spree and Mann and Slitz’ suggestion that polygamy is every man’s dream may be read as signs of self-parody and evokes the “new sexism discourse” in how they mark their self-understanding in terms of traditional masculinity while simultaneously playfully ironizing this position.

Third, the men’s magazines’ “convenient” or strategic mix of gender discourses does indeed characterize laddism. Slitz, M!, and Mann evoke both egalitarian and traditional gender discourses as well as postfeminist discourses, occasionally intermixed, at other times separated. For instance, in the construction of the Christian female subjectivity, the magazines seemingly combine prefeminist notions with female empowerment where the Christian woman takes charge of her desires. This mixing is known as an expression of postfeminism and suggestively reinforces traditional views of gender but in new ways (Gill 2007). In the constructions of the religious man who upholds patriarchal systems and thus oppresses women, the magazines largely draw upon an egalitarian gender discourse that is dominant in Scandinavia (e.g., Johansson and Klinth 2008) by advocating the premise that women should have equal rights.

Overall, while the magazines criticize how religion reinforces gender inequality and patriarchal ideas, they themselves contribute to reproduce and thus naturalize this image by highlighting gender stereotypes in religion while excluding other more nuanced and complex portrayals. Although magazines, compared to other forms of media, represent a rather small market segment, their representations of religion and gender still have ideological implications as they reinforce already established images of gender and religion (in particular on Muslim subjectivities) circulating in the public sphere.

This article demonstrates the ways that ideas of gender play into the construction of religion and religiosity as set out in Scandinavian men’s magazines. The interrelations between religion and media have predominantly been advocated as the outcome of mediatization (e.g., Hjarvard 2013), referring to how media set the conditions for representing religion. This perspective is especially relevant in contexts where the populations have little direct involvement with religion (see Lynch 2011, 205), such as Scandinavia. The study posits that media and religion research benefits from including accounts of gender. More research is needed on the interrelations between religion, media, and gender, so we can understand the complexity of discourses of religion in contemporary society, and how processes of mediatization are shaped by gender (Lövheim 2013c, 192).

Footnotes

Author’s Note

I owe thanks to five anonymous referees for constructive comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was undertaken as part of the research project NOREL (The Role of Religion in the Public Sphere. A Comparative Study of the Five Nordic Countries [2009-2014]) which was funded by Joint Committee for Nordic Research Councils for the Humanities and the Social sciences (NOS-HS).

Notes

References

Altheide

D. L.

2004. “Media Logic and Political Communication.” Political Communication 21:293–96.

Altheide

Snow

1979. Media Logic. London, UK: Sage.

Aune

2010. “Fatherhood in British Evangelical Christianity: Negotiating with Mainstream Culture.” Men and Masculinities 13:168–89.

Avishai

Jafar

Rinaldo

2015. “A Gender Lens on Religion.” Gender & Society 29:5–25.

Bartkowski

J. P.

2004. The Promise Keepers: Servants, Soldiers, and Godly Men. London, UK: Rutgers University Press.

Benjamin Media. 2010. M!. Accessed April 22, 2010. http://benjamin.dk/article/35130.

Benwell

ed. 2003a. Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Benwell

ed. 2003b. “Introduction: Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines.” In Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines, edited by Benwell

, 6–29. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Benwell

ed. 2003c. “Ambiguous Masculinities: Heroism and Anti-heroism in the Men’s Lifestyle Magazine.” In Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines, edited by Benwell

, 151–68. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

10.

Benwell

2004. “Ironic Discourse: Evasive Masculinity in Men’s Lifestyle Magazines.” Men and Masculinities 7:3–21.

11.

Brandth

Kvande

. 2003. Fleksible fedre. Maskulinitet, arbeid, velferdsstat (Flexible Fathers. Masculinity, Work, the Welfare State). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

12.

Butler

(1990)1999. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.

13.

Coats

Hoover

S. M.

. 2013. “Meanings and Masculinities.” In Media, Religion, and Gender. Key Issues and New Challenges, edited by Lövheim

, 141–54. London, UK: Routledge.

14.

Connell

R. W.

(1995)2005. Masculinities. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

15.

Consalvo

2003. “The Monsters Next Door: Media Constructions of Boys and Masculinity.” Feminist Media Studies 3:27–45.

16.

Cooke

2002. “Islamic Feminism before and after September 11th.” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 9:227–35.

17.

Douglas

1978. The Feminization of American Religion. New York: Alfred A. Kopf.

18.

Døving

C. A.

Kraft

S. E.

. 2013. Religion i pressen (Religion in the Press). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

19.

Egmont Hjemmet Mortensen. 2010. Accessed April 7, 2010. http://www.egmonthm.no/Publikasjoner1/Mann/mann/.

20.

Furseth

2006. From Quest for Truth to Being Oneself. Religious Change in Life Stories. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

21.

Furseth

2010. “Atheism, Secularity, and Gender.” In Atheism and Secularity. Volume 1. Issues, Concepts, and Definitions, edited by Zuckerman

, 209–27. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

22.

Gauntlett

(2002)2008. Media, Gender, and Identity: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

23.

Gilhus

Mikaelsson

. 1998. Kulturens refortrylling. Nyreligiøsitet i modern samfunn (The Re-enchantment of Culture. Spirituality in Modern Societies). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

24.

Gilhus

Mikaelsson

. 2001. Nytt blikk på religion (A New Perspective on Religion). Oslo, Norway: Pax Forlag.

25.

Gilhus

Mikaelsson

. 2007. Hva er religion (What Is Religion). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

26.

Gill

2003. “Power and the Production of Subjects: A Genealogy of the New Man and the New Lad.” In Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines, edited by Benwell

, 34–56. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

27.

Gill

2007. Gender and the Media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

28.

Gresaker

A. K.

2013. “Making Religion Relevant? Representations of Religion in Nordic Popular Magazines 1988-2008.” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 26:63–84.

29.

Harvey

Gill

. 2011. “Spicing It up: Sexual Entrepreneurs and the Sex Inspectors.” In New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity, edited by Gill

Scharff

, 52–67. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Heelas

Woodhead

. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution. Why Religion Is Giving Way to Spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

31.

Hjarvard

2011. “The Mediatisation of Religion: Theorising Religion, Media and Social Change.” Culture and Religion 12:119–35.

32.

Hjarvard

2013. “The Mediatization of Religion: From the Faith of the Church to the Enchantment of the Media.” In The Mediatization of Culture and Society, edited by Hjarvard and

Lövheim

, 78–102. London, UK: Routledge.

33.

Jackson

Stevenson

Brooks

2001. Making Sense of Men’s Magazines. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

34.

Johansson

Klinth

. 2008. “Caring Fathers: The Ideology of Gender Equality and Masculine Positions.” Men and Masculinities 11:42–62.

35.

Johnsen

T. A.

2006. Religion for Menn? (Religion for Men?). Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

36.

King

ed. (1995)2005. “Introduction.” In Religion & Gender, edited by King

, 1–38. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

37.

Klaus

Kassel

. 2005. “The Veil as a Means of Legitimization. An Analysis of the Interconnectedness of Gender, Media and War.” Journalism 6:335–55.

38.

Knott

Poole

Taira

2013. Media Portrayals of Religion and the Secular Sacred. Representation and Change. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

39.

Kress

G. R.

Van Leeuwen

. (1996)2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

40.

Krondorfer

2007. “Conflicting Religious Ideals of Masculinity: On Godmen and Male Eunuchs.” Presentation held at Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, December 13.

41.

Langeland

2011. “Maskulinitetens refleksive nostalgi i TV2 Zebras Manshow (The Reflexive Nostalgia of Masculinity in TV2 Zebra’s Manshow).” Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning 4:275–92.

42.

Lüchau

2010. “Atheism and Secularity: The Scandinavian Paradox.” In Atheism and Secularity, vol. 2, edited by Zuckerman

, 177–96. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

43.

Lundby

Gresaker

A. K.

. 2015. “Religion i mediene—omstridt eller oversett? (Religion in the Media—Disputed or Ignored?).” In Religionens tilbakekomst i offentligheten? edited by Furseth

, 69–104. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

44.

Lynch

2011. “What Can We Learn from the Mediatisation of Religion Debate?” Culture and Religion 12:203–10.

45.

Lövheim

2012. “Mediatisation of Religion: A Critical Appraisal.” Culture and Religion 12:153–66.

46.

Lövheim

ed. 2013a. “Introduction: Gender—A Blind Spot in Media, Religion and Culture?” In Media, Religion, and Gender. Key Issues and New Challenges, edited by Lövheim

, 1–14. London, UK: Routledge.

47.

Lövheim

ed. 2013b. “Media and Religion through the Lens of Feminist and Gender Theory.” In Media, Religion, and Gender. Key Issues and New Challenges, edited by Lövheim

, 15–32. London, UK: Routledge.

48.

Lövheim

ed. 2013c. “Media, Religion and Gender: Key Insights and Future Challenges.” In Media, Religion, and Gender. Key Issues and New Challenges, edited by Lövheim

, 183–95. London, UK: Routledge.

49.

M! . 1998a. Wallentin, Mads. “40 Action Trips.” 6, May: 60–70.

50.

M! . 1998b. Ravnsborg, Lasse L. “Sex for Sale.” 8, July: 72–75.

51.

M! . 1998c. Hansen, Mads N. “Solo or Duo?” 8, July: 32–35.

52.

M! . 1998d. Hansen, Mads N. “Who Should You Pursue?” 5, April: 26–29.

53.

M! . 2008a. “Fix Your Sex Life.” 127, June: 48–52.

54.

M! . 2008b. “Girls’ Confessions.” 130, September: 44–45.

55.

M! . 2008c. “M! Tests Guns.” 123, February: 68–71.

56.

M! . 2008d. Knudsen, Mads D. “Sophie-Darling!” 124, March: 66–69.

57.

M! . 2008e. Stjernholm, Anders. “Terror from A to Z.” 122, January: 66–69.

58.

M! . 2008f. Lillesøe, Søren F. “The Olympics from A to Z: Terror.” 129, August: 54–57.

59.

M! . 2008g. Stormer, Carsten and Philipp Kohlhoefer. “When Children Build Bombs.” 132, November: 71–73.

60.

Mahlamäki

2012. “Religion and Atheism from a Gender Perspective.” Approaching Religion 2:58–65.

61.

Maira

2009. ““Good” and “Bad” Muslim Citizens: Feminists, Terrorists, and U.S. Orientalisms.” Feminist Studies 35:631–56.

62.

Mamdani

2004. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. New York: Pantheon.

63.

Mann . 1998a. Schjølberg Ulshagen, Mats. “A Suitable Match for Me.” 5, May: 64–68.

64.

Mann . 1998b. Lund, Vidar. “How Much Do You Really Know about Women?” 2, February: 76–78.

65.

Mann . 1998c. Laytner, Ron and Lance Laytner. “Polygamy: A Dream or A Nightmare?” 7, July: 24–28.

66.

Mann . 1998d. Pedersen, Bjørnar. “Taliban: The True Face of Islam?” 8, August: 56–60.

67.

Mann . 1998e. Lund, Vidar. “The Day Is Not Quite the Same Without.” 3, March: 44–50.

68.

Mann . 2008a. “Adriana Lima.” 133, December: 16–17.

69.

Mann . 2008b. Bergan, Aleksander. “Arm Attack.” 128, July: 44–51.

70.

Mann . 2008c. Stangeland, Maria. “Believing Everything.” 129, July: 54–58.

71.

Niemelä

Christensen

H. R.

2013. “Religion in Newspapers in the Nordic Countries in 1988-2008.” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 26:5–24.

72.

Ozerak

E. W.

1996. “The Power, but Not the Glory: How Women Empower Themselves Through Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35:17–29.

73.

Razack

S. H.

2008. Casting out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law & Politics. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

74.

Rogers

2005. “Chaos to Control: Men’s Magazines and the Mastering of Intimacy.” Men and Masculinities 8:175–94.

75.

Rosenberg

2005. Könet brinner! Judith Butler (The Gender Is on Fire! Judith Butler). Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.

76.

Sharma

2008. “When Young Women Say ‘Yes’: Exploring the Sexual Selves of Young Canadian Women in Protestant Churches.” In Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization, edited by Aune

Sharma

Vincett

, 71–82. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.

77.

Sky

2007. Kjønn og religion (Religion and Gender). Oslo, Norway: Pax Forlag.

78.

Slitz . 1998a. “Are You A Man or A Mouse?” 1, January: 25.

79.

Slitz . 1998b. Drougge, Mats. “Editorial. Are Men Entitled to Have Their Own Magazine?” 1, January: 8.

80.

Slitz . 1998c. Drougge, Mats. “Editorial. The Men’s Magazine Is Dead—Long Live the Men’s Magazine.” 11, November: 10.

81.

Slitz . 1998d. Jensen, Stefan. “Is Your Girlfriend Crazy?” 12, December: 71–74.

82.

Slitz . 1998e. “Jens” (letter from reader). “Manual Expert: Can I Have Several Wives?” 6, June: 110.

83.

Slitz . 2008a. “The good girl” (letter from reader). “Confessions! Forgive Me Father, for I Have Sinned.” 12, December: 113.

84.

Slitz . 2008b. “Schooling in How to Pick Up Women.” 5, May: 44–48.

85.

Slitz . 2008c. Petersson, Hampus. “Sophie Howard.” 2, February: 94–98.

86.

Urstad

2010. “Troens Tall (Figures of Faith).” Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

87.

Van Leeuwen

2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

88.

Walter

Davie

. 1998. “The Religiosity of Women in the Modern West.” British Journal of Sociology 49:640–60.

89.

Whelehan

2000. Overloaded: Popular Culture and the Future of Feminism. London, UK: The Women’s Press.

90.

Winell

2009. “Betydelsesbärande system i damtidningen M-magasin (Meaning Systems in the Women’s Magazine M-magasin).” Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

91.

Winston

2013. “Saving Grace: Television with “Something More.”“ In Media, Religion, and Gender. Key Issues and New Challenges, edited by Lövheim

, 155–68. London, UK: Routledge.

92.

Woodhead

2001. “Feminism and the Sociology of Religion: From Gender-blindness to Gendered Difference.” In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion, edited by Fenn

R. K.

, 67–84. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

93.

Woodhead

2008. “Because I’m Worth It: Religion and Women’s Changing Lives in the West.” In Women and Religion in the West: Challenging Secularization, edited by Aune

Sharma

Vincett

, 147–61. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.