Political scientists recognize discriminatory attitudes as key to understanding a range of political preferences. Sexism is associated with both explicitly and non-explicitly gendered attitudes. But why do certain individuals display discriminatory attitudes, while others do not? Drawing from psychology, we examine the potential power of an underexplored set of personality traits—secure versus fragile self-esteem—in explaining gendered attitudes and preferences. With an online sample of (N = 487) U.S.-based participants, we find that fragile self-esteem is an important trait underlying individuals’ attitudes: individuals who display a discordant view of self—explicitly positive but implicitly negative—are more likely to hold hostile sexist attitudes and prefer men in leadership; these individuals are also more likely to support the Republican Party and former U.S. president Donald Trump. While present in only a fraction of the population, our results suggest that this trait may be important for understanding the development of discriminatory attitudes toward out-groups.

In her piece on experiential learning in a Gender and Politics course, Cynthia Daniels (1997) discusses the ways students' democratic ideals are expanded and enforced through work outside the classroom. She describes the intersection of the classroom with service-learning activities as a way to tackle questions such as, how does gender equity require us to rethink the distinction between public and private life, and what might be the risks of using state power to regulate private relations of power in the home and the workplace (120)? Accomplishing gender mainstreaming through experiential learning serves the purpose of reemphasizing different group perspectives in all types of student learning while demonstrating the “uniqueness” of the effects of policy on women.

Rape crisis centers, which provide supportive services to survivors of sexual assault, are commonly lauded as one of the most successful and lasting transformations achieved by second-wave feminism (Bevacqua 2000; Martin 2005; Schmitt and Martin 2007). But the advocates who work in these centers overwhelmingly reject the use of the word “feminist” to describe themselves or the work of their agencies (Campbell, Baker, and Mazurak 1998; Corrigan 2013; Maier 2008). Here, I describe this puzzling disconnect between feminist consciousness and feminist practice and offer a theory of why the incorporation of feminist analysis could enrich the provision of services on the ground.

Intersectionality has long been a cornerstone of feminist discussion and scholarship around the world (McClintock 1995; Rao 2012). But the concept itself—intersectionality—continues to demand additional explication, interrogation, and development. In 2005, Politics & Gender published a Critical Perspectives on intersectionality that generated a great deal of interest and debate. A recent mini symposium in Political Research Quarterly coedited by Evelyn Simien and Ange-Marie Hancock (2011) further extended this discussion, providing contributions from across subfields in political science to enrich the theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of topics that intersect and combine issues of sexual orientation, race, gender, class, and national origin across the world. This Critical Perspectives seeks to build on these foundations by contributing additional empirical and theoretical attention to the ways in which intersectional analysis can render certain experiences of oppression invisible or seemingly out of the bounds of politics.

Although U.S. private foundations provide significant and varied kinds of support for women and girls globally, we know little about the scope of foundation giving or its effects. In what ways, we ask, has foundation funding attempted to promote the empowerment of women and girls? An important critique has emerged among scholars and practitioners that funding practices often undermine women's activism and movements. We study the empirical evidence for this critique, examining funding trends internationally in the areas of capacity building, issue framing, and coalition forming from 2002 to 2013. We argue that there are reasons for both optimism and concern. On the one hand, we find that the share of funding for organizations and issues that have a political advocacy component has held steady in the past decade. On the other hand, we find trends in the opposite direction in declining shares of funding for general operating costs, leadership training, and coalition building for groups engaged in political advocacy—trends that may weaken the ability of gender equality organizations to promote enduring change.

Gender and politics scholars are increasingly making appeals to ethnographic methodology to bring important contributions to understand the reproduction of gender, gender hierarchies, gendered relations, and their redress in parliamentary settings. This article draws upon fieldwork conducted in the U.K. House of Commons and the European Parliament and finds distinctive gendered cultures and norms in debating and working parliaments. Focusing on one dimension of this distinction—the parliamentary debating chamber—the article argues that parliamentary ethnography provides novel empirical insights into this conceptual distinction and into empirical understandings of gendered debating and working parliaments. While parliamentary ethnography is a fruitful innovation, the article discusses the drawbacks of this methodology and provides feminist reflection on ways to make it more accessible.

Reflecting on the two previous conversations in Politics & Gender (2015 and 2017) regarding the diverging paths in global political economy and security studies that feminist international relations (IR) scholars have taken, I am reminded of Teresia Teaiwa's poetry, which for me speaks about how crisis gives birth to the radical starting points of our feminist inquiries. We are all undoubtedly on the cusp of ever-intensifying forms of insecurities, and peoples who have least contributed to their creation and hastening are bearing the worst impacts. It is projected that by 2100, the compounded threats that humanity will face as a result of climate change will be in multitudes across five main human systems: health, water, food, economy, infrastructure, and security (Cramer et al. 2018; Mora et al. 2018, 106). The complex consequences of climate change demand an approach that encompasses the interaction effects of different risks and hazards. However, across natural and social sciences so far, the norm has been to focus on specific aspects of human life and to examine hazards–including conflict and violence—in isolation from one another. We then run the risk of misleading ourselves with partial, if not incorrect, assessments of the global processes surrounding climate change. In particular, we are yet to understand the multiscalar dynamics of environmental degradation and extreme weather as they are entangled with other crises such as armed conflicts, health pandemics, economic recessions, and resurgences of authoritarian leadership. Whether feminist or not, we simply cannot afford to think in “camps” instead of “bridges” given the nature of the multiple crises we as humanity are facing. As Anna M. Aganthangelou (2017, 741) points out, “[g]lobal politics are never just ‘economic’ or ‘security’ issues,” so the kind of assumptions we hold and how these inform the questions we raise need to “attend to the highest stake of politics: existence.”

Twenty years ago, Pippa Norris and Joni Lovenduski published the classic work Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament (1995), one of the most comprehensive accounts of legislative recruitment thus far. Seeking to explain the social bias evident in legislatures worldwide, Norris and Lovenduski focused on the central role of political parties, arguing that the outcome of parties’ selection processes could be understood in terms of the interaction between the supply of candidates wishing to stand for office and the demands of party gatekeepers who select the candidates. Indeed, in most countries, political parties control not only which candidates are recruited and selected, but also are the central actors involved in adopting and implementing candidate selection reforms such as gender quotas. Yet, two decades later, systematic studies of the “secret garden” of candidate selection and recruitment have been few and far between in the gender and politics literature. It therefore seems a particularly appropriate time to revisit the core preoccupations, puzzles, and challenges that remain in the field of gender and political recruitment.

American foreign policy has expanded in recent years to address issues that affect women and girls worldwide, global women's rights, yet there has been minimal investigation into how these representative claims for women worldwide are formed and the substantive U.S. commitment. Is this a reflection of a growing American feminist foreign policy or symbolic rhetoric for domestic audiences? To better understand the representation of global women's rights in American foreign policy, I analyze the political context behind three widely supported American foreign policy bills focusing on women that were introduced during the 111th Congress (2009–10). Each of these bills failed to become statute. Drawing from qualitative comparative case study analysis, I show how antiabortion politics constrain the legislative success of any American foreign policy legislation that focuses on women, regardless of relevance. This suggests that foreign women's bodies are a terrain for U.S. legislators to advance abortion policy objectives with minimal electoral constraint. Although advancing women's rights furthers broader U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as preventing terrorism and growing market economies, domestic abortion politics shape the boundaries of how global women's rights are represented in American foreign policy.

In their article, Hudson, Bowen, and Nielsen (2011) argue that inequities in family law codify an evolutionary legacy of male control over female reproduction that correlates with increased rates of violence against women. Their general argument is comprised of three fundamental premises. First, the authors provide empirical evidence indicating a relationship between inequities in family law, defined as “state regulation of marriage, parenthood, dissolution of marriage, custody of children, and transmission of goods across generations” (454), and levels of physical violence against women in particular societies. Second, the authors anchor their general argument in a feminist evolutionary analytic approach (FEAA). They contend that evolutionary forces are an ultimate cause of patriarchy and violence against women, even as they acknowledge the importance of more proximate causes of specific forms of violence against women. According to the authors, an FEAA approach can help explain “persistent patterns of patriarchy throughout human history” (464) and “…tells us that there is a strong evolutionary component to violence, and that its origin is male-female conflict over reproduction, and that these influences will be mirrored in human systems of family law” (468). Finally, the authors draw upon the two previous premises to build the third and most critical premise of their argument. Because the authors believe that evidence showing a correlation between inequities in family law and levels of physical violence are ultimately rooted in evolutionary dynamics, they conclude that “[s]ocieties that persist in safeguarding inequitable family law are societies built upon evolutionary male reproductive strategies of structural control and higher levels of coercion of women by men” (470).

A large percentage of women receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — known colloquially as welfare—have experienced domestic violence in their lives, with studies reporting that upwards of 50% of welfare recipients have been abused at some point. Receiving TANF benefits can provide the financial stability that is necessary for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, though some TANF provisions, such as child support reporting requirements, may also put victims of domestic violence at risk. Under TANF, states may adopt the Family Violence Option and waive many program requirements, including time limits, work requirements, and child support reporting requirements, for victims of domestic violence. Given the importance of TANF for those trying to leave, or who have left, abusive situations, this article asks: Who represents the interests of these women in the states? To answer this question, I employ a mixed methods approach, combining a quantitative analysis of the diversity of interest groups in the states with a case study of Connecticut and New Jersey. I find that feminist and domestic violence organizations do not consistently have a significant effect on the adoption of policy accommodations for survivors, but these groups are speaking out.

Although the idea of intersectionality has been widely accepted by social, political, and feminist theorists, little work on intersection has made its way into empirical studies within the social sciences. Because of the diversity of the California electorate, the 2003 California recall election provides a unique opportunity to explore differences in vote choice among women and men from different racial groups. In addition, the context of the recall, including the existence of allegations of sexual misconduct against one of the front-runners in the race for a replacement candidate, makes it an excellent case for testing the existence of intersection. We find that despite the unique nature of this election, partisanship was a significant predictor of vote choice. Additionally, we find that voting on the recall was racially polarized, and that gender affected vote choice more among whites than among other racial groups. These findings have important implications for theoretical models within the subfields of gender and politics and race and politics. At a minimum, our findings suggest that models testing for the effects of race, class, and gender in American society need to treat these factors as mutually constitutive categories of marginalization and privilege, rather than as simple, discrete categories.

Protest event analysis (PEA) and the related concept of repertoire of contention are widely used in the study of social movements. Are they appropriate for the study of feminist protest? I argue that conventional forms of protest event analysis may have significant limitations when applied to feminist protest. Unobtrusive or individualized forms of resistance and protest associated with feminism are difficult to measure through typical protest event data. Moreover, the concept of repertoires of contention retains within it a number of unwarranted gendered assumptions. Some flow from being too reliant upon protest event data. I suggest that repertoires may be gendered, that this is unacknowledged by those who use the concept, and that this has implications for its normative dimensions.

In recent years, struggles for justice, peace, and democracy around the world have been articulated through protests. Whether in Iran, Nigeria, Poland, Senegal, Tunisia, or the United States, this form of political participation challenges the status quo. Rising forms of autocratic rule, democratic backsliding, and right-wing populism underscore the urgency of protesters’ demands. Often overlooked in mainstream accounts, however, is the role of feminists in driving forward liberatory demands for new social contracts (Sen and Durano 2014). One recent example of this is the role that the Feminist Coalition played in the Nigerian #EndSARS protests, mobilizing against years of police brutality and impunity (Nwakanma 2022). Confronted with physical harm and even death, these feminists and their fellow protesters have strategized and theorized a vision for a better world (Nazneen and Okech 2021; Tamale 2020).

This article analyzes women's substantive representation in Iran to highlight the opportunities and obstacles facing women critical actors when a critical mass of women in politics is absent. Through a case study of progressive women policy makers of the Hassan Rouhani era, this research demonstrates that despite an undemocratic political context dominated by conservative gender mandates, the presence of three interrelated factors contribute to the rise of women critical actors in Iranian formal politics: electoral support and grassroots mobilization around women's rights, willingness of elites to adopt measures toward greater inclusion of women in politics, and occasional openings in Iran's fragmented political context that facilitate the nomination and election of women who are likely to advocate for women's rights. However, the absence of these conditions, as observed during the 2020 parliamentary elections, leads to the marginalization of such critical actors, resulting in limited attention to women's rights in key institutions.

This article introduces new quantitative fine-tuned indicators to objectively measure political parties’ preferences on gender issues. We assess the validity and reliability of these new empirical indicators by analyzing the relationship between ideology and gender positions in decentralized Spain. Using data collected by the Regional Manifestos Project, which for the first time has incorporated a fully fledged gender domain into its coding scheme for content analysis of regional manifestos, we analyze parties’ gender positions on four fundamental dimensions: welfare and the labor market, violence, representation, and values and identity. The results suggest that there is a persistent left-right divide on the last three dimensions: Spanish left-wing parties score significantly higher than right-wing and regionalist parties. However, ideology does not drive parties’ gender positions on welfare and labor market policies; support for gender equality policies on this dimension is so widespread that it can be considered a “valence issue”—all parties, irrespective of their ideology, endorse the same (positive) position.

One of the important perspectives that feminist analysis has brought to the study of politics is the value of the individual and the importance of capturing individual experience in our understanding of large social and political forces. Simple aggregation of individual experience can lose the richness of that reality. Yet the normative adherence to the critical appreciation of each person's life and experience need not prevent us from drawing inferences from patterns of behavior in order to help us intervene to improve the lot of those who suffer in the wake of systematic prejudice or discrimination.