Afraid and restricted vs bold and equal: Women’s fear of violence and gender equality discourses in Sweden

Earlier research

Although most assaults take place in the home, it is the perception of the unknown perpetrator that is prevailing and scary. Accessibility and mobility in public space are restricted by this perceived and anonymous threat. Departing from research showing that the image of the unknown perpetrator is the most frightening to women, their access to and movement in public space are restricted due to this perceived threat. Fear is socially constructed and created by (inter alia) media images and warnings from family and friends. Pain (1991) and Stanko (1990) argue that women’s fear may differ from men’s, not only in its intensity but also due to the threat of sexual violence. Problems and constraints raised by fear of violence have a greater impact on women than on men (Pain, 1991; Valentine, 1989). It is so widely accepted that women are afraid, and thus avoid places that are considered dangerous, that women who are brave and go anywhere they please are regarded as reckless. This adds to the perception that, as a woman, one should be afraid. Koskela (1997) believes not only that women are objects that experience restrictions in space but that they also produce, define and take control over space in different ways. She uses the term ‘bold walk’ to describe how women take possession of space to feel more secure. Since everyday discourses paint women as vulnerable (Hollander, 2001) these discourses affect available subject positions for women, but as Koskela (1997) shows, some alternative positions are also available.

In Formations of Class and Gender, Skeggs (1997) shows how subjectivity is constructed among a group of women in England. She presents the concept of respectability as fundamental to an understanding of how investments are made and affect different positions. She analyses how these women position themselves as special types of ‘women’ in relation to public narratives about what it means to be a working-class woman. We see a connection between Skeggs’s discussion about respectability and, regarding fear, how women are expected to behave to be safe (Stanko, 1997). Stanko (1997: 489) discusses women’s ‘safekeeping’ as a process of evaluating risk. She argues that this process is a performance of respectable femininities. But Skeggs’s and Stanko’s arguments could not be ‘imported’ into the Swedish context without reflection on the different versions of gender equality discourses in different national contexts, in which we argue that dominant constructions of femininity are included.

Although women’s fear has been quite extensively studied, earlier studies have not related it to dominating constructions of femininity related to national and local discourses on gender (in)equality. We argue that there is a need to analyse women’s fear in a more explicit societal context, and also that this could shed light on the sometimes ‘irrelevant’ fear women experience. For instance, could fear be regarded as a necessary part of femininity in one context and problematic in another?

Methodological considerations

The article is based mainly on personal narratives of women living in Umeå. However, personal narratives are inevitably interconnected with the social context and relations in which they are located, and are hence connected to public narratives. We have sought to examine both the respondents’ personal and shared experiences of living in Umeå during the period of threat from the Haga Man.

An important rationale behind narrative research is that stories provide a fundamental means to construct, organize and share human experiences. By analysing people’s stories, we can explore both inner worlds and at the same time capture diverse aspects of social contexts and conditions. We interpret and construct the everyday world through stories, and telling stories provides a way for people to construct and express meaning (Mishler, 1986). A narrative framework can contribute to our understanding of how space and social relations are reproduced through the telling. Such analyses aim at discerning how people order experiences, events and actions in order to make sense of them.

The biographical-interpretative method is part of the narrative tradition in social science research, a tradition that has been most strongly developed in life-story research (Hollway and Jeffersson (2004). Analysing biographies of respondents might allow us to trace the discourses, practices and power relations that inform investments in particular subject positions (Hollway, 1984; Metha and Bondi, 1999). A biographical approach permits an analysis of individual differences in responses, which can be explained (to some degree, at least) by differences in people’s individual biographies (Hollway and Jefferson, 1997, 2004). Further, people’s individual biographies may explain variations from the dominant discursive subject and show alternative subject positions as resistance to the norms. To capture the complexity of people’s actual emotional responses, we also need an understanding of their biographical investment in socially available discourses and practices. This combination widens the understanding of the emotionality of social life, and people’s individual emotional responses to the Haga Man’s crime in particular and to discourses of fear and crime in general. In this article a narrative biographical approach is used to analyse two women’s narratives; the analysis showed different individual investments in and responses to dominant discourses on fear and safety in Umeå. We did not analyse the respondents’ whole biographies but rather used a biographical approach in relation to specific events (focused interviews, according to Mishler, 1986).

In discourses, subjects may adopt varying positions to which certain expectations regarding their behaviour can be assigned (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips, 2000). Further, a specific subject may not adopt a single, consistent position, but in different discourses may speak from substantially differing and possibly contradictory positions (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips, 2000: 23). Hollway (1984) uses the term ‘biographical investment’ to explain why a particular person at a particular time occupies a particular subject position rather than another. Analysing the biographies of respondents might allow us to trace the discourses, practices and power relations that inform investments in particular subject positions (Hollway, 1984; Metha and Bondi, 1999). Hollway (1984) shows how people’s biographical histories shape the development of their subject positions. This is theorized with the notion of the defended subject (see below).

How individuals identify with fear of crime discourses depends on their unique biographies, especially their histories of anxiety (Hollway and Jefferson, 1997: 265). Hollway and Jefferson (2004) identify two levels of fear of crime. The first is connected to the discursive subject, and concerns how people are formed by discursive representations. The discursive subject helps to explain the social constructed subject; that women are more fearful of crime than men are since discourses on crime position women as vulnerable and criminals are often represented as young men. The fears of crime people express are in one way something that is expected by them. But there are also individual differences, and people’s individual biographies can explain deviations from the discursive subject. The second level of fear of crime Hollway and Jefferson identify is the defended subject, referring to subjects’ investment in discourses when they offer positions that provide protection against anxiety, and thus support their identity (2004: 23). People have identity investments in their positioning in particular crime discourses. The defended subject is a social phenomenon since it is a process that affects and is affected by others (Hollway and Jefferson, 2004: 24). It is only possible to understand people’s use of particular crime discourses by attending to their personal investments in them.

The study

This research ¹ is based on an analysis of empirical data collected through in-depth interviews by one of the authors (Sandberg). Altogether 27 women of different ages and ethnicity, living in Umeå, were interviewed. The interviews were conducted at three different times – in 2001 and 2005, and then in 2006 after the Haga Man’s arrest. The selections varied during the three periods and were adapted to what was identified as changes in the local public discussion in newspapers and in people’s everyday talk. The themes and topics focused upon in all three of these series of interviews were the same – first, how the respondents related emotionally and reacted in terms of fear and safety in general, and second, to the Haga Man phenomenon in particular – and the responses were analysed together. ²

Hollway and Jefferson (2004) emphasize that it is important to consider individual differences in the ways people face available information. It is therefore important to understand their individual positions in a given context to acquire an understanding of how individuals handle a situation. Hence, in this study it was important to obtain an understanding of the information available at the times of the interviews, and to capture the local discourse around women’s fear and safety, as well as to examine the respondents’ individual differences in order to understand how they responded to and handled the situation.

A bit surprisingly, and although we have put an analytical focus on ‘differences’ between women, in relation to age, class and ethnicity, the findings of this study do not show a complex pattern for women’s fear of violence. Rather, a quite uniform female position is produced in the interviews. It seems as if this specific situation produced a shared approach to fear for women of different ages, classes and ethnicities in Umeå. The female respondents also found themselves in the same public narrative, in the same social space, and were influenced by the same feeling rules. Of course, their age, ethnicity, class background and personal experiences are important for the construction of the individual’s femininity. But our analysis shows that despite these differences, they interviewees reproduced similar stories and common positions in their talk about fear of violence in public space. The female respondents also expressed similar experiences of threatening situations, consistent views on their own vulnerability and experiences of expectations of taking a fearful, vulnerable position. Thus a very uniform pattern, and an image of fear are produced.

However, despite this consistency, we see differences in relation to how the interviewees relate to their feelings of fear and in this different forms of femininity are produced. Here, differences such as class, education, but also political views on gender, seems to be important. Thus, in the following we will show how different versions of femininity are constructed in the material, and we will do this through what could be seen as two ‘ideal types’ represented by two of the informants. In other words, and in order to focus on the individual positions in this context as we discussed earlier, we have chosen to focus particularly on the constructions of two positions of femininity represented in the narratives of two women: the narratives of Marie and Sara illustrated a clash between two contrasting discourses of gender and fear in public space.

Changes in women’s fear of violence in Umeå

During the same period as the attacks by the Haga Man (1998–2006), 234 rapes were reported to the police in Umeå. ³ Of these, 62 were perpetrated outdoors. The Haga Man assaults gained special attention as a case of a violent repeat offender in public space. Hence, the image of the unknown perpetrator came to overshadow other forms of violence against women (such as assaults in the home) in the local media reports and in the discussion about violence against women.

In the interviews there is a clear distinction between women’s and men’s perceptions of risk before and after the assaults. In other words, the attacks by the Haga Man became a turning point. As mentioned earlier, prior to the Haga Man attacks Umeå was considered a relatively safe city. Few women thought of themselves as potential victims, and most women felt relatively safe in public space. ⁴ Of course, Umeå is not a completely isolated exception where women are not afraid, but what one can see from the interviews is that there was no direct discussion of women’s security and, above all, that it was not directly discussed as a major problem. Fears of violence were not constantly present when the women were outdoors after dark, at least not as something explicit.

But women’s fear increased dramatically during the time of the attacks, and in the interviews women started to explicitly discuss their position in terms of vulnerability and described how they restricted their use of public space. Suddenly they stopped walking home alone; not only because of their own fear but also as part of a changed public crime discourse in which it was becoming unacceptable for women to do this. As we see it, women in Umeå adapted their use of space due not only to their fear but also to the norms that clearly marked that as a woman you should be careful and use your better judgement, and hence restrict your use of public space. Women’s fear of violence was increasingly perceived as normal behaviour, a change that several respondents recognized and did not approve of. They did not want this to be the case, at the same time that they more or less resigned themselves to and accepted the situation.

In media articles on the threat posed by the Haga Man to the city of Umeå, women and men were positioned according to traditional forms of femininity and masculinity, meaning that women in Umeå were collectively placed in a victim position. This result is also found among our female respondents when they indicate that the dominating ‘feeling rules’ they had experienced (Hochschild, 1983) implied that they were expected to be fearful, or at least act carefully in their use of space. In Lindgren and Lundström’s (2010) analysis of the media reports related to the Haga Man, they also argue that his victims are often described as ‘all women in Umeå’ and as that they could have been any of ‘us’. The victims are not described individually and the only attribute given to them is their age, the argument being that there is no need for more information in order to understand them (Lindgren and Lundström, 2010: 315). We do not need any more information to identify with and sympathize with them. It is interesting to note that there was no questioning of the women’s behaviour, the way they dressed or how drunk they may have been in media reports of cases connected to the Haga Man (Livholts, 2007), or any questioning of the victims’ credibility. However, warnings, advice and ‘codes of conduct’ regarding how women should behave in public spaces to keep themselves safe were issued. Such codes of conduct also act as ‘rule reminders’ (Hochschild, 1983) and regulate how women are supposed to feel and act. The general way such advice is regulated may have the effect of placing the responsibility on women (Livholts, 2007; Stanko, 1997). While the advice issued, and the media reports at the time, indicated that women in Umeå should be careful, the general message was that they should not be overly cautious or too restricted. In addition, Livholts (2007) shows that some media articles had contradictory features, including some examples that trivialized women’s fear. For instance, in some cases they were encouraged to continue living their lives as usual, although they were recommended to avoid dark places and refrain from walking alone. Women in Umeå were supposed to be careful, but not allow their fear to take control over their lives. In an earlier analysis of this material, Sandberg concluded that women’s collective feelings of fear in the context of a single repetitive offender could also open up a space for women when demands on the ‘right’ individual behaviour are more or less silenced (Sandberg, 2011). In the following section, two different positions found among the female respondents will be discussed. As mentioned earlier, these two interviews are used to illustrate the positions found in the material. In different variations we argue that the positions discussed here could be discerned among more or less all respondents.

Two positions of femininity: The vulnerable woman and the independent woman

First are the interviews with Marie, a young white woman who was interviewed twice. She was 20 years old when we first met in 2005, and 22 years old in 2006. Marie has a working-class background, and has lived her whole life in Umeå. She has worked part-time as a salesperson, but was unemployed at the time of both interviews. At our last meeting Marie had changed boyfriends. However, both her previous and current boyfriend were ascribed the same role, and she positioned herself similarly in these two relationships. She gives several different examples of situations that have influenced her fear, and one from a nightclub on the university campus is presented below:

I couldn’t find my friends so I went to the bathroom downstairs, and just when I was going to go out a guy came in and pushed me up against the wall, like that, he started kissing me and like that. Luckily, I had a clear head and hadn’t been drinking so I kneed him and ran away. There were no guards there, not nearby, so I hid upstairs. (Interview 2005)

This harassment was an individual incident, but also part of a pattern in which she expects to be molested by men when she goes to clubs. The sexual harassment women encounter as part of growing up female contributes to their concerns about their sexual integrity (Stanko, 1990). And Marie describes that she adapts the way she dresses and acts to avoid being molested. She talks about this more in a state of passivity or resignation rather than anger. The feeling rules are apparent here as she keeps referring to the discourses of female vulnerability. For her it is natural to adapt to the codes of conduct that vulnerable women are supposed to take into account.

Marie reflects what Hollway and Jefferson (2004: 124) call a specifically gendered expression of anxiety. This also involves a projection of the capacity to protect to known men:

I guess I could walk on my own, but my boyfriend doesn’t want me to. I take the bus or my bike sometimes during the day, but at night he always picks me up. If I go out with the girls he says ‘Call me and I’ll come to pick you up.’ That’s very good. (Interview 2006)

Hollander (2001) found that both women and men see men as protectors. Marie projects the capacity to protect to known men and, particularly, attributes a protective role to the boyfriend. In her talk Marie does not discuss her boyfriend as controlling but rather as protective. She talks about his protection as something positive, and as a symbol of his concern for her.

Marie’s history of criminal victimization is relatively minor, but her history of anxiety is more apparent. During the interviews she repeatedly talks about different places and times where she feels insecure; where she does not dare to go alone. Marie shows what Hollway and Jefferson (2004: 123) describe as ‘a fearful femininity in which anxiety had become attached, often from an early age, to the idea of being the victim of a male stranger when unprotected’. She has an identity investment in her positioning in a discourse of female vulnerability, and this legitimates her experiences and use of space. She has adopted and accepted the position of being vulnerable, but does not really refer to herself as an unsafe person. She does not describe her insecurity as a major problem, and handles it by not putting herself in situations she perceives as unsafe. She does not seem to feel particularly restricted in her everyday life. She has rather resigned herself to the situation and accepted it for what it is. In this sense Marie shows agency, as she is handling the situation. She has developed behaviour patterns which very seldom put her in situations in which she feels afraid and vulnerable. This agency is shown, for instance, in how she developed relationships with both boyfriends, positioned herself and was positioned by the boyfriends as vulnerable, and the protective roles she ascribed to the boyfriends.

What is also evident in Marie’s positioning is a lack of (explicit) relation to any form of gender equality discourse. For her it is not a matter of feeling she should be able to move freely in public space, as she rather accepts the situation for what it is. This resonates with Ambjörnsson’s (2004) argument about the connection between feminism and class. She argues that class differences underlie the group of working-class girls’ relative lack of interest in feminism, because they cannot identify with middle-class feminist definitions of gender issues. Notable from the interviews with Marie is also her lack of references to the Haga Man. At our 2005 meeting she does not refer to him as a specific threat, as the other female respondents do. She has already developed a behaviour and position of the vulnerable woman, and these particular attacks have not changed her behaviour. Her feeling of fear and vulnerability was not connected to the attacks of the Haga Man. This also means that, even though she is very pleased that the Haga Man has been arrested, this does not really change her situation:

You never know, anything can happen. Just because the Haga Man is gone, this could start all over again. (Interview 2006)

Marie’s example illustrates how a fearful emotional reaction can shape a woman’s preferences and actions in her everyday life. Through her separation of strangers as threats and of the boyfriend as a guarantor of her safety, she constructed clear dichotomies of safe and dangerous, which helped her organize her everyday life.

In contrast to the position among some of the respondents that Marie represents, several female respondents expressed an ambivalent attitude regarding their own fear; that they were afraid, but as (equal) women they should be able to do what they wanted, whenever they wanted. This was expressed in stories of anger about situations in which they adapted their everyday behaviour in ways they felt they were expected to. The dominating discursive subject positions women as vulnerable and therefore obliged to be careful in their use of public space at night. But this discursive subject is challenged by a position that states that women should not have to be afraid or adapt their behaviour, at least not to a great extent, which resonates with political discourses on gender equality in the Swedish context. This ambivalence may be interpreted as expressing resistance against ready acceptance of the new crime discourse in the Umeå context.

Sara illustrates this ambivalence. She was 26 years old when we met in 2006, and had moved to Umeå in 2000 shortly after the Haga Man’s first assault. She is white and from a middle-class background, and came to Umeå to study at the university. She was currently running her own business, and kept returning to talk about feeling she was restricted in her life because she felt insecure. Sara explains her fear with references to the attacks by the Haga Man and the discourses of fear and violence that followed. In contrast to the image of the equal, independent Swedish woman Sara wants to identify with, she also refers to the gendered expression of anxiety that was significant for Marie. In our talk about security and fear she describes her fear as very frustrating:

I think many girls like me have conflicting feelings. I’ve talked to quite a few friends about it, anyway, and the situation is that you don’t want to be afraid and you don’t want to be insecure and you don’t really want to admit it either to yourself or to others. You don’t want to let anyone control your life, but you do to a large extent, and you make a lot of irrational choices.

Sara discusses the fear of violence in terms of gender-based violence, and identifies a promotion of gender equality as the solution to the problem. In much of her talk she has a kind of gender equality discourse in mind. She recognizes that, statistically speaking, men are assaulted, but generally women are more afraid, and that most assaults on women occur in the home. She has a broad theoretical understanding as she discusses women’s fear of violence as a structurally gendered problem but she has problems linking this to her own fear, which creates feelings of frustration that she attributes to a position as a ‘vulnerable’ woman. The feeling rules are apparent as she refers to her own vulnerability. Sara is frustrated and angry at the fact that she is in a position in which she feels afraid, and says she barely admits to herself that she is affected by her fear. She keeps talking about trying to handle and resist her fear so she can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants:

I’d like to go out whenever I want to and sit wherever I want. I wish I could walk or take the bike home. It would be nice to walk if you’re going home when you’ve been out or something. Just to take it easy and go home, as part of the experience.

Sara has an investment in her positioning in a discourse of gender equality and women’s independency, and this legitimates her feelings and use of space. She takes on the official and public discourse on gender equality and has modified this discourse based on her own experiences of fear within this context. This investment causes her adaption to the position as a vulnerable woman to be conflicting, and hence, in contrast to Marie, she describes her insecurity as a problem and restriction. She handles it by trying to resist it. Even though she describes how she uses public space frequently, she feels restricted in her everyday life. And she tries to overcome her fear and does not accept it. Sara has developed a behaviour pattern in which she actively tries to resist her fear. She expresses frustration, as her self-image and subject position as an equal woman are challenged. She is determined to not be controlled by her fear, but at the same time her friends’ warnings constantly remind her that she should be afraid, or at least careful:

I have refused, or I try to refuse, to avoid things because I feel insecure or afraid. But then I often cycle like a maniac to get home, because I feel insecure. I have to admit that it’s like that.

Sara positions herself in the notion that the women of Umeå should be afraid, but should not let the fear control their lives, as they are encouraged to continue to live their life as usual but to be careful. Hochschild (1983) found that her respondents often spoke of acting upon feelings, for example trying not to feel depressed or let themselves feel sad. They spoke about managed feelings (1983: 13). Similarly, Sara exemplifies someone trying to manage her feelings as she tries not to be afraid and reasons with herself to not be restricted by her fear. She is struggling to find this balance and to combine it with her positioning in a gender equality discourse. She experiences a kind of powerlessness in feeling that she does not have full control over the situation.

It is her investment in a gender equality discourse that creates her conflicting emotional response to her own fear. Her biographical investment in this discourse is challenged. With the assaults by the Haga Man and their effect on Umeå, Sara’s self-image is also challenged. A way to manage this changing self-image is to express anger about the violence against women. This anger becomes a way to maintain a focus on the gender discourse and to question the normalization of women’s fear.

Women’s ambivalence: Afraid and restricted vs bold and equal

The narratives of Marie and Sara illustrate a clash between two contrasting discourses on gender and fear in public space, and also result in two contrasting constructions of femininity. Sara relates to – and also struggles with – an official discourse of gender equality, positioning herself in relation to an ‘equality femininity’ whereby women are equal to men and thus not afraid. Marie ‘rests’ more comfortably in a ‘traditional femininity’, the vulnerable – and frightened – woman, a positioning that despite the image of a gender-equal Umeå does not seem to be difficult or problematic. These two versions of femininity should also be understood in relation to implicit versions of masculinity as sexuality whereby the ‘traditional femininity’ relies on a ‘traditional masculinity’ with the man seen as the protector. In addition, these traditional versions of masculinity and femininity should be regarded as constituted in relation to heterosexuality as compulsory. In contrast, the equality femininity could be seen as struggling with heteronormativity in pointing to the ambition of the woman to ‘take care of herself’. It is interesting to note how the ‘traditional femininity’ seems quite easy to access, despite the image of Umeå as being safe and equal. When the traditional discourse of vulnerable women meets the established discourse of gender equality, it seems as if the equality femininity becomes more difficult to hang on to. This indicates that the gender equality discourse might not be as established as, for example, official presentations of Sweden and Umeå would like it to be.

In all the interviews women expressed an ambivalent attitude concerning their own fear – they talked about being afraid, but also expressed that fear was something expected from them because they were women; something they had difficulty accepting. In this modern and gender-equal society, they should not have to be affected by their fear and they should not need to be afraid. As an (equal) woman you should be able to do what you want, whenever you want. In the situation of the Haga Man, women in Umeå were positioned as vulnerable and thus obliged to be careful in their use of public space at night. This situation also challenged the (earlier, local) gender equality discourse that stated that women should not have to be afraid or adapt their behaviour, at least not to any great extent. Thus, the respondents were positioned between a traditional discourse of women as vulnerable and scared, and a modern gender-equal discourse whereby women were supposed to feel self-assured.

This ambivalence was shown in the interviews when several of the women expressed anger at having to be afraid and a number of them almost apologized when they talked about their strategies, how they were affected and how they handled their fear. The dominant discursive subject constituted women as vulnerable and being careful. At the same time this subject position was challenged; as a woman in a gender-equal city, you should not really need to adapt or be afraid. Several respondents showed this ambivalence by saying I’m a bit silly, I’m a coward, I’m a bit paranoid, I’m afraid of the dark. The consequences of these clashing demands on femininities could be interpreted as an effect of the official discourse of gender equality, that this discourse actually demands a specific femininity – the equality femininity. And when women do not comply with this femininity, their fear is turned into an individual problem. In the gender equality discourse there is no room for fear of men’s violence.

Fear can be argued to be a consequence of women’s unequal status, but simultaneously it contributes to perpetuating gendered power relations (Pain, 1991). This is reflected here, but it has also been shown that there is an awareness of it among women and that they are actively trying to downplay their own fears. The expectation that women should be equal to men does not fit the image of the frightened, vulnerable woman, although it is the dominant image. Our starting point is that the spatial constraints in women’s lives should be understood as a reflection of gendered power relations in society. Despite this, or perhaps also due to this discourse, women feel that they ought to restrict their mobility ‘voluntarily’, as individuals. This also means that they do not regard their inability to use space freely as a serious constraint but rather as a normal and accepted condition. Seeing the restricted space as a big problem also becomes problematic; as a woman you are always between the discourse on the woman as someone who is vulnerable and should be afraid, on the one hand, and on the other hand, wanting to live up to the image of the assimilated woman who does as she wishes without restrictions. In Umeå, we can see how the dominance of these two discourses shifted in relation to the Haga Man assaults. For a long period after the first Haga Man assaults there was (again) room for women to articulate an equality femininity. This space had previously been limited:

During the period it was really true that once we were out, we always had company on the way home. Guys who lived quite far away could say ‘I’ll follow you home so I’ll know that you’ve gotten home safely’. Everyone was definitely always so conscious of this, that they would always check if people were going to see each other home. (Woman, 24 years old, white, interviewed 2005)

This demonstrates how there really was no space where one did not have to be afraid, but the dominant standard became the vulnerable woman in need of protection. During this time, as a woman you were supposed to be careful in your use of public space after dark:

I try to deny it. I don’t think I should have to be afraid to go there. But deep down I am. (Woman, 24 years old, white, interviewed 2005)

Mehta and Bondi’s (1999) study shows that even though many young women said they were fearful, they felt it was important not to let this restrict them. The female respondents in this study also describe how they try to not be afraid, at the same time as they all declare that they are afraid; something they are also very angry about. According to Hollander (2001), women’s vulnerability is constructed in people’s everyday talk about fear and danger, and female sexual vulnerability is regularly invoked in public discourse to suggest that women should not be in public places alone at night (Valentine, 1997). The everyday reality of many women is that they live under a self-imposed curfew, feeling that it is dangerous to walk the streets after dark (Madriz, 1997). This raised complex emotions among the women interviewed in this study.

To appear appropriately feminine, women must meet gender expectations regarding vulnerability (Hollander, 2001). The feeling rules indicated that a woman in Umeå should be afraid. At the same time, the gender equality discourse told them not to be afraid because they are gender-equal. Another femininity was demanded. The two female respondents presented in this article also related emotionally to how they were positioned in space and, in their practice, to the changing crime discourses on fear and safety that followed the Haga Man’s crimes. They adapted to the discourses in similar ways, but it provoked different emotions. That women were expected to be afraid and be in need of protection created different emotions among the female respondents, and this can be explained by their biographies and individual discursive investments. They encountered the same feeling rules and discourses, but their responses varied according to their previous biographical investments. One of the women had already assumed the position of the ‘vulnerable’ woman; thus her reaction to the changing discourses of fear and crime that followed the attacks was passivity, a resignation to the codes of conduct for vulnerable women. The other woman, on the other hand, had an investment in the position of the equal woman, and as this position was challenged by her fear she responded with frustration and anger. When the traditional discourse on vulnerable women meets the established discourse of gender equality, it seems as if the ‘equality femininity’ is more difficult to hang on to. In the gender equality discourse there is no opening for women in terms of how they should handle their fear of men’s violence

But these results do not only show the difficulties of claiming the official position of a gender equal femininity. We also believe it is possible to discern a possibility for women in Umeå to move between different femininities, and that the event of the Haga Man also in a way actually enhanced this increased space of agency. Even though fear became a part of life for women in Umeå, the case of a single repeat offender also challenged the official picture of a gender-equal city, showing that Umeå might not be so safe for women and that this was not the women’s fault, or that fear is not necessarily a part of what it means to be a woman. The informants’ ambivalence, and partly anger, in relation to a femininity they wanted but could not have might also create a possibility for a critique on women’s position in society and thus a challenge to a presumed gender equality that stands in the way of addressing issues of gendered power relations.