Recent studies emphasise gender attitudes as an explanation for the gender gap in the radical-right vote. However, little is known on whether the (mis)match between the issues that are given the most salience by radical-right parties and (wo)men’s issue priorities accounts for the gender gap in the radical-right vote. Merging a large series of barometers conducted in Spain, including more than 9,000 radical-right voters from January 2020 to March 2023, we find that issue priorities are gendered and that VOX’s support is mainly driven by male issues. Also, importantly, regional nationalism and gender – two of VOX’s flagship issues – affect women’s and men’s probability of voting for VOX differently. These findings indicate that the main determinants of voting for VOX are largely driven by men, not women.
Despite it being not only central to the politics of critical studies on men and masculinities but also one of Connell’s four patterns of masculinity developed alongside the now-canonical ‘hegemonic masculinity’, the concept of ‘complicit masculinity’ has received little attention. This article suggests that complicit masculinities should be understood as political masculinities, in that they are from the beginning shaped by the existing politics and power relations that construct gender. This means acknowledging that masculinities are always at risk of complicity. Rather than this rendering the notion of ‘complicit masculinities’ redundant, I draw on a range of critical studies on men and masculinities to argue that identifying complicity as a feature of masculinities: first, allows us to identify three interrelated dimensions of complicity, which I label as ‘intentional’, ‘structural’ and ‘intersectional’ complicity; and, second, can serve as the starting point for a men’s profeminist politics.
Most politicians are men, yet there is a surprising lack of focus within political science on the causes and consequences of male dominance. This article outlines how political science could benefit from greater engagement with scholarship on men and masculinities. The concept of ‘political masculinities’ has focused on the importance of ‘the political’ to masculinities scholarship; we argue for extending this concept to analyse men and masculinities within political science. We identify insights from scholarship on masculinities that would deepen our understanding of power within formal political arenas. We consider how gender and politics scholarship could benefit from expanding its focus on men. We highlight feminist institutionalism as a tool for bringing masculinities into the study of political institutions. We then offer a framework for taking this research agenda forwards, showing how we can better understand male dominance by thinking about how men access, exercise, maintain and reproduce power.
This article interrogates the concept of “political masculinities” in terms of its usefulness as an analytical category. The article covers four major areas associated with the concept. First, some critical questions concerning the dichotomy between studying “men in politics” and “political masculinities” are offered. Second, concerns are raised regarding specific terms used in the current definition of political masculinities. Third, probing queries are presented on the conceptual utility of political masculinities as an analytical category. Finally, the article closes with a discussion of ex-US President Donald Trump, illustrating his distinct type of dominating masculinity and how this masculinity illuminates the substance and meaning of his “politics.”
In recent decades, a growing body of scholarship has shed light on the persistent inequalities in political representation, revealing that citizens are far from equal in their access to, and experience of, representation. While ample research has focused on the issue of under-representation, scarce attention has been given to the implications of descriptive and substantive under-representation on the perception of being substantively represented, as reflected in citizens’ satisfaction with implemented policies. This study aims to make a significant contribution to the existing literature by investigating the substantive representation of descriptively under-represented citizens in the context of Belgium. Specifically, this research examines the intricate dynamics of substantive (under-)representation with political institutions (government, parliament and political parties) and citizens’ perceptions of being represented in terms of satisfaction with government policies. The findings reveal intriguing variations in different measures of substantive representation, highlighting the need for critical review and further investigation in future studies.
This chapter explores the temporalities of gentrification, arguing that promises of inclusion can work to keep us hooked to a version of the present that actually forecloses an alternative vision of the future. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork and reflections collected after the redevelopment project’s ultimate approval, the chapter mobilizes temporality as a conceptual framework to focus on the active construction of multiple temporalities and the political work these do in (un)tying the past, present and future of the pub in the service of the normalization of dominant social relations. At the same time, I also argue that the kinds of socialities, relationships and friendships developed in trying to survive a violent present can lead to the creation of alternative queer utopias. These do not emerge from seeking inclusion within the dominant institutions and processes of capital accumulation, but from daring to imagine a queer future that overcomes the limits of the past and the up-beat, optimistic futures offered by gentrification.