click here to login into www.sisp.it

SISP Conference 2025

«Political science in the digital age»

SISP2025 Sections and Panels

back to Sections and Panels list

Section 12 - Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality in Politics

Managers: Francesca Feo, Anna Lavizzari

Read Section abstract

Panel 12.1 The Meanings of Intersectionality in EU Public Policy

Chairs: Izadora Silva Pimenta

Discussants: Izadora Silva Pimenta

Intersectional Feminist Analysis of Italy’s National Adaptation Plan: Addressing Gendered Climate Vulnerabilities and Regional Disparities
Berfin Tutku Ozcan
Abstract

This study critically interrogates Italy’s National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change (PNACC) through the analytical lens of intersectional feminist political ecology, with particular attention to urban governance challenges and gendered climate vulnerabilities. While the PNACC represents a vital step in aligning Italy’s adaptation strategies with EU and global climate frameworks, its national-level design risks overlooking the differentiated capacities and needs of marginalized groups, particularly women in socio-economically vulnerable and environmentally exposed urban contexts. This research explores how structural inequalities—rooted in gender, geography, governance, and socio-economic status—intersect to shape adaptive capacities in unequal ways across the Italian peninsula. While adaptation planning has gained attention globally, implementation often falters due to deep-rooted institutional and socio-political constraints. In Italy, the divide between northern and southern regions is a persistent feature of both environmental governance and socio-economic development. Northern cities such as Bologna benefit from more robust institutional infrastructures and financial resources, enabling more integrated and participatory climate adaptation strategies. However, cities like Naples face historical underinvestment, fragmented governance, and entrenched socio-economic challenges, which constrain the operationalization of national adaptation mandates at the municipal level. Naples' exposure to both coastal and urban flooding, coupled with precarious public budgets and high socio-economic vulnerability, amplifies the urgency of localized, inclusive adaptation strategies. The research draws on feminist political ecology (FPE) to unpack how gender and power relations are embedded in climate policy frameworks. FPE challenges the technocratic and ostensibly neutral discourse of adaptation policy by highlighting how socio-environmental vulnerabilities are co-produced by intersecting axes of inequality. Applying this framework allows for a critical reading of the PNACC not only as a technical policy document but also as a discursive and institutional artefact shaped by particular knowledge systems and political priorities. FPE emphasizes the role of women not merely as vulnerable subjects but as agents of adaptation, whose knowledge and lived experiences are essential for building climate resilience. Methodologically, this study employs a qualitative policy analysis informed by critical discourse analysis and feminist institutionalism. The PNACC is examined alongside legislative texts, municipal implementation frameworks, and participatory planning mechanisms, focusing on how gender equity is (or is not) operationalized in official climate discourse. The analysis is grounded in a comparative review of adaptation planning in two illustrative urban cases: Bologna in the north and Naples in the south. These cities offer distinct socio-political and environmental contexts through which to assess the practical implications of national adaptation frameworks. While Bologna has leveraged EU funding and local stakeholder engagement to advance integrated urban resilience plans, Naples continues to struggle with fragmented governance and limited participatory infrastructure, particularly in marginalized neighborhoods and informal settlements. The findings highlight three interlinked challenges. First, the legal and policy language of the PNACC lacks binding gender-responsive provisions. Gender is framed as an ancillary concern, rarely integrated into sectoral adaptation priorities such as flood prevention, water management, or urban planning. Second, municipal implementation reveals stark asymmetries in adaptive governance. Northern cities often benefit from higher institutional capacity, technical expertise, and cross-sectoral coordination, whereas southern cities like Naples encounter structural constraints that impede inclusive adaptation. Third, there is a pronounced absence of participatory governance mechanisms that would enable the inclusion of women—especially from working-class, migrant, and minority communities—in climate decision-making. Building on these insights, the study calls for a reorientation of adaptation policy that embeds intersectional gender justice into the core of climate planning. This includes developing city-specific indicators of gendered vulnerability, mandatory gender impact assessments in adaptation policy design, and institutionalizing participatory governance structures that ensure meaningful engagement of marginalized voices. By centering localized knowledges, everyday practices, and social reproduction in environmental governance, feminist political ecology offers a roadmap for transformative adaptation grounded in equity and justice. Ultimately, this research contributes to ongoing debates on climate justice, multilevel governance, and inclusive adaptation. It positions Italy’s PNACC within the broader tensions between supranational climate commitments (such as those articulated in the Paris Agreement and the EU Green Deal) and subnational realities marked by institutional fragmentation and social inequality. Hereby, this study underscores the importance of tailoring adaptation policies to urban contexts challenging one-size-fits-all approaches to resilience, and affirming the value of feminist, intersectional, and territorially grounded strategies for navigating the climate crisis. Keywords: adaptation, climate policy, gender equity, intersectionality, PNACC

Translating Intersectionality into Practice: Methodologies for Inclusive Policy-Making in European HEIs
Izadora Silva Pimenta
Abstract

In this talk, I present the methodological framework of an interdisciplinary research project that aims to critically examine the challenges and possibilities of operationalising intersectionality in HEI policy-making, focusing on universities in the European Research Area (ERA). I will explore the conceptual and institutional gaps that hinder the systemic embedding of intersectional approaches in higher education policy. Drawing on political science, critical discourse analysis, and gender studies, I present a multi-level research design that aims to capture how intersectionality is defined, negotiated, and implemented within institutional strategies across a transnational alliance of European universities. By combining interpretive policy analysis and stakeholder engagement, I aim to map institutional discourse and co-develop tools that support implementation in practice. The presented methods and plans are deisgned to allow me to understand: (1) how institutions construct and circulate meanings of intersectionality in policy documents; (2) how policies reflect or obscure the lived experiences of marginalized groups, and if intersectionality is recontextualized across different institutional cultures and capacities; and (3) how research-informed outputs—including policy briefs, training modules, and an open-access digital platform—can support capacity building among HEI staff. I recognise the urgency for capacity building among Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) leadership in HEIs across the EU, as already demonstrated by works such as Arkings and Kortesidou (2024), who identified key obstacles such as limited training, resource allocation challenges, and misconceptions surrounding DEI, reducing institutional efforts to short-term projects or overly simplistic gender-focused frameworks, rather than fostering an intersectional approach. Other problems, such as the lack of data (and lack of knowledge on how to deal with equality data under GDPR rules), insufficient leadership support, and a lack of shared definition of what intersectionality is - and what intersectionality is not - also affect the current status of work.

What kind of mainstreaming? Assessing the place of intersectionality in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum
Ilaria Lorusso
Abstract

Gender equality is considered a core value of the European Union (Article 8 TFEU, 2012, p. 53) and, accordingly, the EU is committed to advance this value across its territory. In order to do so, a variety of policy tools have been employed, from equal opportunity policies to positive action measures, and eventually Gender Mainstreaming (henceforth GM). Institutionalized with the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, the Council of Europe (2018) defines GM as “the (re) organization, improvement, development, and evaluation of policy processes so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and stages, by the actors normally involved in policymaking”. All these tools have equally played their part in establishing keystone aspects of the Union’s approach to gender and anti-discrimination in general, albeit the literature that none of these tools, except for GM as a more comprehensive methodology, fulfills its transformative potential as a stand-alone method (Squire, 2005, 2007; Guiraudon, 2009; Lombardo & Verloo, 2009; Henrand, 2011; De Vos, 2020). In time, many studies have analyzed the EU’s modus operandi and attitudes towards GM. The literature identified a gap between the EU’s GM rhetoric and its inclusion in policies (Guerrina & Wright, 2016, p. 295). Additionally, its implementation is not uniformly executed but varies depending on the policy field: specifically, GM has been unevenly applied, if at all, to policy areas that are considered “gender neutral”, such as security, foreign policy, and migration. Among these, the latter policy is a loud absentee. The growing yet limited literature on the topic signaled that GM is unevenly applied in what concerns border control, screening, first reception, resettlement, agreements with third countries and so forth (Stachowitsch & Sachseder, 2019; Allwood, 2015; Welfens, 2020). This is relevant also vis-à-vis the concept of intersectionality, i.e., the idea that discrimination is the result of interlocking social categories – gender, race, class, age, (dis)ability – interacting with one another that cannot be considered separately, which has received growing attention both by scholars and policy makers, and the consequent evolution of the so-called diversity mainstreaming (Squires, 2005). In the original formulation of Crenshaw (1989), the concept served to avoid the “essentialization” of identity in political discourses, i.e., to stop perceiving the characteristics of an individual as isolated categories and begin looking at them as intertwined (Bastia, 2014, p. 238). The concept as such helps “visibilizing the interconnected and constitutive nature of multiple forms of oppression [...] in migration processes” (Bastia, 2014, p. 238). Previous studies of EU’s approach to GM and specific elements of it – EU’s insistence on gender binarism, neutral and universalizing language, poor attention to the concrete experience of women in general, and a perspective that maintains rather than challenges the status quo – also highlight that, albeit growing presence of the concept in policies, intersectionality is not yet a cross-cutting issue in EU politics, migration management included (Meier, 2018, p. 185; Verloo, 2001; Krizsan et al., 2012; Welfens, 2020; Cleton & Bonjour, 2022). The objective of this paper, then, is to contribute precisely to this strand of literature by investigating what perspectives of gender equality and intersectionality can be found in the newest available EU legislation on migration management, aiming to draw a more holistic picture of the linkages between these issues. In doing so, it constructs two main research questions on the basis of the “What’s the Problem Represented to be” (WRP) approach to policy evaluation and the Critical Frame Analysis (CFA) Methodology (Bacchi & Eveline, 2010), and investigates how is gender and intersectionality conceptualized and problematized in the 2024 New Pact on Migration and Asylum (diagnosis), and what propositions are put in place to solve issues related to these topics (prognosis). While Member States (MSs) are now in the process of implementing the new rules in their national systems, where necessary, the policy texts of the New Pact provide a venue for analyzing how gender and intersectionality are conceptualized and problematized within the new legislation upon which the EU and its MSs will organize their migration management for the foreseeable future. As the latest milestone in this policy area, an analysis of the New Pact from the point of view of GM and intersectionality contributes to a growing body of research on the gender-migration nexus within EU studies that expands its focus from asylum to other forms of regulating migration, especially as a woman refugee could be regarded as the “quintessential” of intersectionality (Bastia, 2014). At the same time, it allows further exploration of the role of “founding values” of the EU in highly politicized policy issues adding to established theoretical frameworks within EU studies as the Capability-Expectations Gap (Hill, 1993), Normative Power Europe (Manners, 2002; Guerrina and Wright, 2016), and Organized Hypocrisy (Lavenex, 2018; Cusumano, 2019). Furthermore, it is of utmost relevance to note that the silence around the interception of these topics has visible and dramatic consequences for migrants that, because of the homogenization of their statuses and experiences in legislation, lack adequate policy-based solutions that would benefit them fully (Freedman 2016; Tyszler, 2019; Holzberg, 2021; Phillimore et al., 2022; Di Matteo, 2025).

The Implementation of an Intersectional Legal Framework: Spain as a Case Study
Giulia Arena, Mariacaterina La Barbera
Abstract

This paper presents the MSCF recently funded project “RELIEF: REsearching Legal Implementation of an Intersectional Framework: a feminist sociolegal analysis of opportunities and obstacles”. It explores the implementation of intersectionality as an anti-discrimination framework in legislation, legal praxis and public policies with an interdisciplinary feminist approach. Combining legal analysis with qualitative and participatory methodologies, RELIEF aims to understand how the legal implementation of intersectionality can effectively address complex discrimination from a law-in-action perspective. To achieve this goal, RELIEF conducts a sociolegal analysis of Spain’s anti-discrimination law, focusing on institutional actors, academic experts and civil society. RELIEF proposes to explore the legal praxis of institutional actors because ‘praxis has been a key site of intersectional critique and intervention’ (Cho et al. 2013). An emerging field of research argues that only an intersectional framework can fully capture the complexity of implementing gender equality rights and is increasingly focused on the challenges of institutionalising intersectionality in Western democracies (Engeli and Mazur 2024, Coll-Planas et al. 2023, Boulos and La Barbera 2022). These studies emphasise the need for extensive research that goes beyond the limited case studies on policy implementation and argue that research on intersectionality should not be confined to a policy-only perspective. Research on intersectionality also needs to go beyond the case-law perspective. The study of intersectionality cannot be limited to judicial remedies but must encompass legislation, legal praxis and public policies that shape everyday people’s lives. Intersectionality challenges EU anti-discrimination law, which typically addresses discrimination in separate categories (Atrey 2019). The current EU legal framework shapes intersectionality around the primacy of the gender axis (thus intersectionality is increasingly advocated to advance gender mainstreaming policies) but does not fully integrate an intersectional approach to inequalities, while European courts have generally failed to incorporate intersectionality into their reasoning (Dube 2024). Consequently, intersectional discrimination often ‘falls through the cracks of equality protection’ (Xenidis 2018). Researching intersectionality in Spain within the EU multilevel context is justified for several reasons: it addresses the gap in sociolegal research on Southern European countries and tests the application of intersectionality in the EU (Kantola and Nousiainen 2009). For years, Spain has taken a ‘unitary approach’ (Hancock 2007) to address inequalities, in which different forms of inequality were addressed separately, with a clear focus on gender, as in the 2007 Equality Act. For Bustelo (2009), Spain was moving from a ‘unitary approach’, in which gender has supremacy, to a ‘multiple approach’ and the change was mainly due to EU legislation. Finally, in 2022, Spain transposed Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC and in doing so decided to completely revise the anti-discrimination law, approving a national act on equal treatment and non-discrimination (Ley 15/2022 integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación) that, for the first time, recognises structural discrimination and explicitly provides protection against forms of intersectional discrimination; thus, Spain is the only EU country that explicitly provides protection against intersectional discrimination. For these reasons, Spain is the only case that enables research on the national legal implementation of intersectionality while at the same time making the research time sensitive. RELIEF adopts a feminist (Hesse-Biber and Nagy 2013) interdisciplinary methodology that combines theoretical and qualitative methods, ensuring scientific advancements, exploitation of results and co-creation of policy recommendations with a participatory approach. In the multilevel EU anti-discrimination framework, Spain, with its quasi-federal government, diversity of gender regimes and legal innovations about discrimination (Lombardo and Alonso 2020), is the perfect laboratory for RELIEF. With Ley 15/2022, Spain provided the first EU coherent, crosscutting and comprehensive law on equal treatment and non-discrimination, including intersectional discrimination and combining preventive and restorative approaches. In this context, RELIEF focuses on the structural (La Barbera et al. 2020) axes of discrimination (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, nationality, disability and socioeconomic status) by investigating how institutional actors at different governmental levels have implemented the intersectionality framework. Five case studies have been selected (two municipalities and three regions) that are representative of the rich and multifaceted Spanish variety in experimenting with legal solutions on the implementation of intersectionality: a) the Municipality of Barcelona, b) the Municipality of Madrid, c) the autonomous community of Andalusia, d) the autonomous community of Galicia, and e) the autonomous community of the Basque Country. As previous studies (La Barbera et al. 2022; La Barbera et al. 2024) have shown, legal departments of public institutions consider intersectionality alien to their competences: it will be particularly interesting to understand how this approach has changed (if at all) with the 2022 national legislation. The final goal of RELIEF is to provide empirical evidence to improve the theoretical debate on the institutionalisation of intersectionality and provides recommendations for public institutions and civil society advocates to address multifaceted discrimination, reduce inequalities and strengthen human rights protection.

Panel 12.3 Feminist Politics for Democratizing Societies and Institutions

In the global context where both democracy and equality are challenged, feminist politics stands out as a key democratizing force for both society and institutions. Regarding societal democratisation, feminist politics is concerned with intersectional inequalities and places new formerly excluded issues on the political agenda as democratic priorities. It seeks to democratize all areas of society, for instance, through policies aiming at an equal redistribution of care work or the construction of spaces free from gender-based violence. Regarding the democratisation of institutions, it establishes mechanisms to effectively include all minoritized groups in political institutions. The current context however calls for a deeper investigation of the relationship between feminism & intersectionality and democracy & democratisation, and invites political science debates to better understand its characteristics, potential, and challenges. The aim of this panel is to investigate this relationship and to explore feminist politics’ potential for and contribution to the democratization of society and institutions. The panel invites analyses including feminist movements and institutional practices that promote the inclusion and participation of intersectionally gendered, racialized, and LGBTIAQ* subjects in a variety of social and institutional processes, feminist experiments of democratic design, or feminist community practices to reappropriate the public space to make it more inclusive and capable to respond to the needs of citizens, especially from intersectionally marginalised groups. The panel welcomes theoretical and empirical papers that address, amongst others, the relationship between democracy and feminist politics; feminist movements’ visions of future, more equitable, societies; feminist democratic innovations/interventions in decision-making and policymaking; feminist movements and institutional practices to democratize society and/or institutions, through protest politics, democratic design, or any other practice, from different regions of the world; and challenges that feminist democratic practices face.

Chairs: Karen Celis, Johanna Kantola, Emanuela Lombardo

Discussants: Emanuela Lombardo

Democratic (Re)Design for Unequal Democracies
Karen Celis, Sarah Childs
Abstract

Towards intersectional democratic futures? Feminist institutional and activist responses to anti-gender movements at the EU-level
Johanna Kantola, Valentine Berthet, Matti Pihlajamaa
Abstract

This paper aims to explore the current challenges and hostilities faced by democracy, feminist politics, and intersectional movements in Europe. It provides empirical insights into feminist activist and institutional responses to anti-gender movements within the context of the European Union (EU) and examines their possibilities and limitations in advancing intersectional democratic futures. Our critical starting point is that anti-gender politics sets a new context that not only underlines the old shortcomings and inequalities related to democracy and feminism but also introduces new ones. Democracy and feminism are highly contested concepts in contemporary European politics and scholarly debates. On one hand, democracy is undermined in the EU by democratically backsliding member states and diverse tendencies towards “illiberal democracy”, often fueled by anti-gender actors attacking against the rights of women, LGBTIQ+ people, and racialized minorities. On the other hand, feminist politics is characterized by internal fractures and conflicts. Considering these recent discussions, we analyze the diverging and converging constructions of “democracy”, “feminism” and “intersectionality” that feminist civil society and institutional actors have and assess their implications for responses to anti-gender politics within the EU public sphere. Our preliminary findings suggest that while there exist shared goals among feminist actors, their differing positions and access to resources lead to various strategies regarding democracy and feminism, affecting intersectional solidarity and collective responses to anti-gender threats. The study is based on a qualitative analysis of 30 semi-structured interviews conducted between 2023 and 2024. The interviews are divided into two groups: (1) activists from civil society organizations engaged in EU-level advocacy for gender equality, LGBTIQ+ rights, and anti-racism (N=16), and (2) feminist institutional actors from the 9th term of the European Parliament, including parliamentary staff and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) (N=14).

Managing Sensitivities: LGBTIQ Rights, Gendered Language, and Administrative Neutrality in the Finnish and the German Parliament
Petra Ahrens
Abstract

Femocrats as a Contentious Field: Feminist Divides in Italian Gender Policy Debates
Francesca Feo, Anastasia Barone, Giada Bonu Rosenkranz
Abstract

Scholarship on state feminism has demonstrated the importance of alliances between feminist movements, women politicians, and policy agencies for advancing gender equality legislation in Western post-industrial democracies. These alliances, when aligned on policy frames, goals and tools, have contributed to successful policy outcomes and tangible progress on gender and sexual equality globally. Within this body of literature, Italy is often portrayed as a case of weak state feminism – characterized by underdeveloped women’s policy agencies, a limited presence of femocrats, and a generally skeptical stance of the feminist movement toward political institutions. These elements are frequently cited as explanations for the country’s comparatively modest progress on gender equality. In this paper, we offer a different perspective and argue that the situation is more nuanced. Feminist-identifying MPs have participated in institutional spaces, though they may be less visible or formally acknowledged. While much of the Italian feminist movement has historically distanced itself from institutional engagement, favouring autonomy or conflictual approaches, some actors - particularly from traditions of difference feminism or equality feminism - chose to engage from within. Missed policy opportunities, therefore, sometimes stem from ideological disagreements between feminist traditions rather than a lack of institutional feminist presence. Empirically, this paper investigates the role of femocrats in three legislative episodes: the 1996 debate on sexual violence, the 2006–2008 discussions on adoption regulations for single mothers, and the 2016–2017 negotiations on gender quotas in the national electoral law. Drawing on parliamentary debates, policy documents, and 15 interviews with feminist and gender-sensitive MPs, the analysis reveals a sustained but uneven presence of femocrats. These actors do not form a cohesive bloc but represent a contested field shaped by competing feminist paradigms. In particular, the paper examines tensions between difference feminism - long dominant in Italian institutions - and equality feminism, more closely aligned with international gender mainstreaming discourses. By unpacking these internal tensions, the paper offers a novel contribution to the literature on state feminism, democratic theory, and gender politics in Southern Europe.

Democratizing care? Feminist democratic innovations in the formulation of care policies
Emanuela Lombardo, Paloma Caravantes , Sonia Ruiz García
Abstract

Feminist democratic innovations in institutional politics are ‘processes or institutions’ aimed at improving the quality of democracy by reimagining governance through more intersectionally inclusive and participatory policies and politics (Caravantes and Lombardo 2024). Gender and intersectionality mainstreaming aims to integrate a gender and intersectionality perspective into policymaking, employ feminist knowledge in administrative processes, and transform institutional structures through equality machinery and civil society participation. What are the criteria to assess feminist democratic innovations in care? How can gender equality and intersectionality mainstreaming policies in relation to care act as feminist democratic innovations? The paper will address these questions through the empirical analysis of the pioneering case of Barcelona’s gender equality local policies within the framework of a “Caring City” in the 2015-2023 period. It will identify criteria for feminist democratic innovations in care politics, including the emergence of care as an economic public problem (Martí Plademunt & Ruíz García forthcoming), the goal of a fairer distribution of care among relevant social actors, the use of feminist knowledge, and the intersectional inclusion and participation of affected actors. In particular, the paper will explore the discourse and practice of ‘democratization and socialization’ of care, as well as the opportunities and challenges in the formulation and implementation of care policies. The latter include, those related to diverse interpretations of ‘care’, the intrinsically dual goal to address both recipients and providers of care, the challenges within local governance, and the social and economic reorganisation needed to promote intersectional justice within care practices. References Caravantes, P. & Lombardo E. (2024). Feminist democratic innovations in policy and politics. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 177-199. Martí Plademunt, B. & Ruíz García. S. (forthcoming). Gender budgeting practices as a feminist democratic innovation. The case study of 8 years of gender budgeting in Barcelona.

Panel 12.4 Instrumental and/or Intrinsic? Perspectives on the Role of Gender in Far-right Successes and Democratic Backsliding

Long considered merely a side effect of global and regional liberal politics, gender politics has, over the past decade, become acknowledged by many as a ‘unifying element’ for a consolidating bloc of conservative, populist, and extremist groups. Despite this heightened focus, the exact reasons for the centrality of gender in the current “democratic crisis” remain debated.
On the one hand, scholars have pointed out how gender is instrumentally employed as a central element of populist rhetorical strategies. From this perspective, right-wing and conservative actors (strategically) frame gender and feminism as aligned with, responsible for, or synonymous with a variety of contemporary crises borne from neoliberal capitalism, environmental destruction, and geopolitical conflict.
On the other hand, scholars have highlighted the central role of deeply entrenched gendered grievances as part of these societal ruptures, discussing, for instance, the mediatization of a ‘crisis of masculinity’ or the intersectional nature of affective polarization as gendered bodily experiences. In this perspective, gender is an intrinsic – rather than strategic – aspect of current struggles over cultural, political, and economic hierarchies.
While these perspectives are not inherently contradictory, some tensions arise between framing gender as an instrumental tool versus an intrinsic and intersectional experience in contemporary societal struggles. By critically examining the intersections, divergences, and possible synergies between these perspectives, this panel’s goal is to develop a deeper understanding of the role of gender in far-right successes and democratic backsliding, as well as engage with potential tools to resist the ongoing threats to democracy and social justice. As such, we welcome proposals that situate themselves within this debate, offering theoretical and empirical contributions that help unravel the instrumental and/or intrinsic role of gender in current discussions on the far and populist right and “democratic crisis”.

Potential topics include, but are not limited to:
• Theoretical approaches to masculinity and femininity and their role in democracy
• Capitalism, gender, and crisis
• Gender and societal and affective polarization and radicalization
• Mainstreaming of far-right and male supremacist rhetoric through political institutions and media
• Grassroot resistance and feminist movements
• The role of gender issues and attitudes in electoral behavior

Chairs: Valentina Nerino, Katya Rothermel

Discussants: Katya Rothermel

How do Voters Respond to Gender Inclusive Language in Political Discourse? Evidence from German Politicians.
Francesco Colombo, Tobias Widmann
Abstract

Trump and transgenders: rhetoric, policies and stereotypes
Marco Morini
Abstract

Between Firewall and Funnel: Conservative Women and the Normalization of Far-Right Anti-Gender Discourse - The German Case of Christian Democratic Female Party Leaders ("Frauen Union")
Pauline Ahlhaus
Abstract

In Germany, the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is facing mounting pressure from the radical right, particularly from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which promotes anti-gender politics as a core ideological principle. This paper examines the role of gender in this political shift, focusing on how gender politics have become a key battleground in the CDU's attempts to preserve its democratic and centrist identity. Anti-feminism, often weaponised by far-right actors, serves as a discursive bridge into mainstream conservatism, complicating traditional party boundaries and ideological commitments. In this context, the CDU's female leaders and its women's organisation, the Frauen Union (FU), emerges as pivotal players, simultaneously targeted and potentially complicit in the mainstreaming of anti-gender discourse. The paper explores the ambivalent positioning of conservative women's party organisations such as the FU, which operate at the intersection of feminist demands and conservative ideology. While these groups advocate for women’s representation, they often do so within gender-conservative frameworks that prioritise moderation over transformation. This duality raises a core research question: Are conservative women’s organisations intrinsically gender-conservative and thus ideologically aligned with far-right anti-feminism? Or are they under external pressure from right-wing actors, resisting the infiltration of anti-gender discourse into democratic gender debates? To address this question, the paper draws on the growing body of literature that debates the normalization of far-right discourse and the mainstream-right responses. From an instrumental perspective, gender is strategically deployed by populist actors to stoke discontent and frame feminism as a symptom of neoliberal or cultural decline. From an intrinsic perspective, however, gender is embedded in the very fabric of conservative parties, which far-right actors seek to disrupt. The CDU women and the FU are situated at the nexus of these tensions. Although they publicly reject far-right extremism, they frequently perpetuate exclusionary gender norms, oppose progressive reforms and distance themselves from feminist language. The case study focuses on the FU as a microcosm of the broader tensions within conservative gender politics. As a women's organisation within a centre-right party, the FU is committed to women’s representation, yet it avoids association with feminist movements. This ambiguity enables the FU to serve as a rhetorical 'firewall' against the far right, while perpetuating key aspects of anti-gender discourse. These include opposition to gender-inclusive language, rejection of the Gender Self-Identification Law, and endorsement of binary gender norms. Methodologically, this paper employs poststructuralist discourse theory and qualitative analysis. Sources include party documents, editions of the FU's magazine Frau & Politik, and semi-structured interviews with FU leaders and members, as well as their quotes from media coverage. Preliminary findings reveal that, although members express concern about the anti-feminism of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, they also reject feminist perspectives, distance themselves from intersectionality, and perpetuate anti-immigrant and transphobic narratives. This ambivalence illustrates the blurred boundaries between conservative and radical-right gender politics and how the FU contributes to the normalisation of anti-gender discourse while presenting itself as a centrist actor. The FU reflects a hybrid positioning, being internally shaped by gender-conservative ideology while being externally responsive to the instrumental anti-feminism of the far right. This tension limits its capacity to act as a force for democratic renewal or gender equality, yet positions it as a key site of contestation over the meanings of both. The paper demonstrates that centre-right women's groups, even if they are not explicitly aligned with anti-democratic actors, can still reinforce exclusionary norms that contribute to democratic erosion. These findings challenge binary categorisations of actors as either feminist or anti-feminist, and call for a more nuanced understanding of how gender is mobilised, resisted and institutionalised across the conservative spectrum. Ultimately, this paper highlights the need to scrutinise not only the far right's gender agenda, but also the ambiguous role of mainstream conservative actors in reproducing or resisting anti-gender ideologies. As a site of both opposition and complicity, the FU exemplifies the challenges and limitations of centrist resistance in times of far-right successes.

Twisting Radicality – How the Far Right Twists the ‘Radical’ Project of Feminism
Valentina Nerino, Ann-Kathrin Rothermel, Giuseppe Carteny
Abstract

Panel 12.5 Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Contemporary Humanitarian Crises

Gender-based violence (GBV) is an umbrella term for various forms of violence that can affect people of all genders. It results from discrimination and unequal power on the basis of gender-roles and norms. Examples of GBV include child marriage, intimate partner violence, sexual and emotional violence and other forms of harm inflicted against a person’s will. GBV is widespread and disproportionately affects girls to the extent that at least one in three women worldwide would have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. Research clearly shows that the prevalence of GBV dramatically increases during humanitarian crises and complex emergencies. It is reported that “women and children are 14 times more likely to die or be subjected to extreme violence in situations of disaster (Plan Ireland, 2013)” Conflicts, natural disasters, and complex emergencies exacerbate pre-existing gender inequities and also generate multiple risk factors – such as sudden loss of food, water, shelter, family protection etc.

A review by the Irish Consortium on Gender-Based Violence (ICGBV) revealed that less than 4% of OECD development aid targets gender equality, with only 1% addressing GBV (ICGBV, 2024, p. 4). Similarly, UN OCHA's Financial Tracking Services (FTS) data shows that only 25% of the GBV sector's needs have been met in the past two years, with significant volatility and dispersion in funding. Another report from 2022 noted that a mere 0.2% of all overseas development aid (totallying USD $204) targeted investment in GBV prevention. Another key aspect of note is that there are few correlations between GBV risk factors and funding flows, suggesting that funding is not responsive to GBV risks (Ortiz, 2024, p.15).

The recently announced funding cuts to USAID programmes have no doubt exacerbated challenges to addressing GBV in emergencies. But the chronic underfunding and marginalization of GBV within humanitarian responses is neither new nor unique to particular crises. In this context, this panel seeks to provide a space for the wider academic and practitioner community to interrogate the structural bottlenecks that need to be addressed in order to raise gender-based violence to "high politics" such that safeguards against GBV might be mainstreamed in humanitarian diplomacy.

This panel welcomes papers on, but not limited to the following :
- Analysis of financing of GBV programmes in humanitarian crises
- Case studies on challenges of GBV funding within overseas development and humanitarian aid
- Cost-Benefit analyses of investing in GBV programming
- Theoretical perspectives on the marginalisation of GBV interventions within humanitarian and development responses
- GBV in humanitarian diplomacy
-Innovative solutions for addressing GBV in emergencies
- Ethical dilemmas in addressing GBV in crises

Chairs: Massimo Prearo

Discussants: Massimo Prearo

Beyond Victimhood: Gender, Migration, and the Repoliticization of Humanitarian Law
Daniela Belliti
Abstract

Over the past thirty years international attention to the issue of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in humanitarian settings has steadily increased. Whether in the context of armed conflict, migration and displacement, or natural disasters, international agencies consistently acknowledge this problem and propose strategies for its prevention, resolution, and management. This paper adopts a critical lens—both intersectional and postcolonial—to analyze these approaches, with a focus on migration contexts, where the contradictions between state-driven repressive policies toward migrants and the humanitarian exception applied to women become particularly stark. It argues that the difficulty in applying international humanitarian law to cases of SGBV stems from a humanitarian paradigm rooted in victimization and the exclusion of subjects from spaces of agency. The paper concludes by advocating for a non-binary and intersectional rethinking of the gender–migration–violence nexus. 1. SGBV, Gender Binarism, and International Law At the 2016 UN World Humanitarian Summit one of the five key commitments was to promote "greater gender equality and inclusiveness," with a call to strengthen the role of women and girls in humanitarian aid ("Women in Development" approach). Yet in the decades since, and particularly amid the exponential rise in migration driven by war, persecution, poverty, and climate change, this approach has largely failed to protect women and girls from violence. Feminist critiques point to the persistence of a rigidly binary conception of gender as a key factor in the ineffectiveness of international humanitarian law addressing SGBV. This binary framing reproduces gender subordination through three main mechanisms: First, the "natural" and "necessary" categorization of women and girls as part of a vulnerable group, which victimizes them while positioning men as predators or perpetrators; Second, the tendency to view women as inherently nurturing, thereby making them the default recipients of aid intended to benefit other vulnerable populations (children, the elderly, the sick); Third, the strategic adoption of the victim identity by women themselves in order to access international protection ("victimcy strategy", Utas 2005)—thus inadvertently reinforcing the very gender stereotypes humanitarian frameworks seek to dismantle. As Freedman (2016) argues, this "naturalization" of vulnerability not only strips migrant women of agency but also sets the stage for further discrimination and marginalization—even in spaces of supposed refuge and protection. Turner (2019) contends that the current focus of the international community on gender-based violence in humanitarian contexts plays into a neocolonial Western worldview. Critiques of gender binarism have also expanded the conversation to include violence suffered by men and boys, as well as LGBTQiA+ individuals, in emergency settings. Chris Dolan, director of the Refugee Law Project in Uganda, has challenged the 2015 IASC Guidelines, arguing that denying resources and service access to male and LGBTQiA+ survivors of SGBV constitutes another form of gender-based violence (Dolan 2014). Jeanne Ward, the Guidelines’ author, has responded by defending the gains made in advancing women’s rights and gender equality, while also noting that “on the whole, more women than men are affected” by sexual violence and other forms of SGBV (Ward 2016). 2. Humanitarian Law, Victimhood and Structural Violence A humanitarian approach that frames women as inherently victims of violence in their countries of origin tends to serve two functions: it legitimizes repressive migration policies, and it erases the agency of migrant women within Western public discourse. Host countries, by merely providing care or protection, often absolve themselves of deeper responsibility—failing to address the structural roots of violence, which lie in gendered power relations, processes of racialization, and social, economic, and generational injustice and inequality. To expose the contradictions between the lofty principles of international humanitarian law—proclaiming equality and opposing violence—and its political and administrative implementation, which is often securitarian and harmful to human rights, two theoretical moves are necessary: 1. to move beyond binary conceptions of gender by recognizing the multiplicity of gendered power relations across diverse contexts of oppression; 2. to deconstruct the victimhood paradigm within humanitarian law, making visible the subjectivities of affected bodies, and thereby repoliticizing a humanitarian framework that has been reduced to “bare life”. As Butler (in Butler, Spyvak 2007) reminds us, there is no such thing as “bare life” in humanitarian contexts—only bodies that are deeply imbued with meaning and subjected to exceptional and controlling forms of power. References: J. Butler, G.C. Spyvak (2007), Who Sings the Nation State? Language, Politics, Belongings, Seagull Books C. Dolan (2014) ‘Letting go of the gender binary: charting new pathways for humanitarian interventions on gender-based violence’, International Review of the Red Cross, 96(894) J. Freedman (2016), "Engendering Security at the Borders of Europe: Women Migrants and the Mediterranean ‘Crisis’", Journal of Refugee Studies, 29, 4 S. Turner (2019), Victims of Chaos and Subaltern Sexualities? Some Reflections on Common Assumptions about Displacement and the Prevalence of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, in S. Buckley-Zistel, U. Krause (a cura di.), Gender, Violence, Refugees. Studies in Forced Migration, Berghahn M. Utas (2005) ‘Victimcy, girlfriending, soldiering: tactic agency in a young woman’s social navigation of the Liberian war zone’. Anthropological Quarterly. 78(2) J- Ward (2016) ‘It’s not about the gender binary, it’s about the gender hierarchy: a reply to “letting go of the gender binary”’, International Review of the Red Cross, 98(1

Domestic and Gender Based Violence Governance in Ghana
Rosina Foli, George Domfe, Joshua Zaato
Abstract

Ghana confronts various types of domestic and gender-based violence, which greatly impacts women and children. A 2016 survey report indicates that over a quarter (27.7 per cent) of women and 20 per cent of men in Ghana experienced at least one type of domestic violence in the 12 months prior to the survey (Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Ghana Statistical Services (GSS) and Associates, 2016). The Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) reports based on the 2022 Demographic and Health Survey that close to 30% of women experienced gender-based violence including emotional and sexual abused. Domestic violence cases reported to the domestic violence and victims support unit (DOVVSU) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 were 9393, 18629, and 16586 respectively (Myjoyonline.com, 2021). However, this information may pale in comparison with the actual state of the phenomenon in the country due to the challenge of under reporting (EndGBV Africa, 2024; Arethwala, 2023). Under reporting is underpinned by informal institutions built around family norms and gender roles that largely privileges patriarchy and encourages the settling of such issues within the family. Consequently, the family interferes in cases of domestic violence preventing its reportage and inadvertently perpetuating such violence (Pappoe & Ardayfio-Schandorf, 1998; Cantalupo, Martin, Pak, & Shin, 2006; MoGCSP, 2024). Formally, domestic and gender-based violence in Ghana is governed by the 1992 Republican constitution, the Domestic Violence Act, 2007; the Criminal Code 1960; and the Affirmative Action Act, 2024. In addition to the provisions contained in these documents, the country has signed international conventions and treaties, coupled with other policies which seek to directly address the issue. They include the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the child and family welfare policy 2015, and the strategic framework on ending child marriage published in 2016. To give effect to the legal and policy regime, Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) previously called the Women and Juvenile Unit (WAJU) was established in 1998 as part of the Ghana Police Service. These formal institutions, however, do not function effectively in the administration of cases of domestic violence due to low funding of formal services. Coupled with informal institutions largely characterized by societal gender norms, survivors of domestic violence feel disempowered, as their experiences misalign with their expectations of the domestic violence legal provisions (Kaburi & Kaburi, 2023). Consequently, most victims would rather seek help from non-governmental organizations. It is our position in this paper that the nature of domestic and gender-based violence governance institutions including formal and informal is crucial to whether individuals want to report cases of violence and to seek redress. As shown in the research by Kaburi and Kaburi (2023) while victim and/or survivors of domestic violence were aware of government or formal services provided they are more confident in the non-governmental sector. The formal services available, including shelters, are woefully inadequate and victims feel less confident in accessing them. In studying the responsiveness and impact of the governance institutions on the prevalence of domestic violence, we draw mainly on secondary sources comprising published journal articles, newspapers and government reports on domestic and gender-based violence in Ghana. Works Cited *Arethwala, E. (2023, July). Supporting women and girls against violence in Ghana. Retrieved from https://cscuk.fcdo.gov.uk/development-theme/supporting-women-and-girls-against-violence-in-ghana/ *Cantalupo, N., Martin, L. V., Pak, K., & Shin, S. (2006). Domestic violence in Ghana: The open secret. Geo. J. Gender & L. (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law), 7, 534 - 594. *EndGBV Africa. (2024). Ghana. Retrieved May 1, 2025, from https://endgbv.africa/mapping/ghana/#:~:text=The%20Demographic%20and%20Health%20Survey,a%20pressing%20issue%20in%20Ghana. *Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Ghana Statistical Services (GSS) and Associates. (2016). Domestic Violence in Ghana: Incidence, Attitudes, Determinants and Consequences. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from https://www2.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/publications/DV_Ghana_Report_FINAL.pdf *Kaburi, R. M., & Kaburi, B. B. (2023). Formal support services and (dis)empowerment of domestic violence victims: perspectives from women survivors in Ghana. BMC Women's Health, 23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02678-5 *MoGCSP. (2024). Ghana's Report on Beijing +30 . Ghana’s 6th Progress Report on the implementation of the Beijing Platform of Action. Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection. Retrieved May 2025, from https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/b30_report_ghana_en.pdf#page=25.48 *Myjoyonline.com. (2021, June 6). 913 emotional abuse cases, 77 economic abuse cases were reported in 2020 – DOVVSU. Myjoyonline.com. Retrieved from https://www.myjoyonline.com/913-emotional-abuse-cases-77-economic-abuse-cases-were-reported-in-2020-dovvsu/ *Pappoe, M. E., & Ardayfio-Schandorf, E. (1998). Survey: Dimension and Consequences of Violence Against Women in Ghana. Retrieved December 22, 2022, from https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/fr/countries/africa/ghana/1998/dimension-and-consequences-of-violence-against-women-in-ghana

Mobilizing Against LGBTIQ+ Equality: Anti-LGBT Events in Four Western Countries: Actions or Reactions?
Massimo Prearo, Federico Trastulli, Pedro Lourenço
Abstract

Panel 12.7 Contentious gender politics between democratization and de-democratization

This panel explores the entanglements between gender politics and democracy in a global context of growing polarization.

Attacks on gender and sexuality, often entwined with xenophobic claims, have become a key feature of contemporary de-democratization processes (Lombardo et al. 2021; Scrinzi 2024). Anti-gender movements, together with populist radical right (PRR) parties and anti-trans actors, target feminist, LGBTQI+, and sexual rights advances across multiple arenas (Lavizzari 2025). Furthermore, anti-gender and PRR actors (re)produce imaginaries of a white and Christian nation threatened by migrants (Indelicato and Magalhães Lopes 2024). These actors not only seek to roll back equality gains, but also challenge democratic values through strategies that delegitimize dissent, restrict civil society, and promote authoritarian governance (Verloo and Paternotte 2018).

Feminist and LGBTQI+ actors are responding to anti-gender far-right politics with resilience, resistance and innovation (Caravantes, and Lombardo 2023; Smrdelj and Kuhar 2025). Feminist responses encompass different dimensions, ranging from institutional settings (Kantola and Lombardo 2024) to grassroots spaces (Demirsu 2022). They also articulate multifaceted strategies that research still needs to comprehensively unpack.

This panel aims to explore contentious gender politics, as an arena in which a variety of actors, including anti-gender, PRR and feminist movements, are either promoting or undermining democracy.

We welcome contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following concerns:
- The role of anti-gender and anti-trans campaigns in broader authoritarian projects
- Alliances between PRR parties and anti-gender movements
- Strategies of anti-gender and PRR parties to undermine democracy in the field of gender and sexuality, also at their intersections with other exclusionary claims, such as xenophobic and femonationalist stances
- Policy outcomes of anti-gender mobilizations
- Contentious fields - such as abortion, surrogacy, sex work, trans rights, and gender education - where feminist and anti-gender actors compete
- Feminist responses to anti-gender and far-right politics
- Feminist democratic innovations in times of backlash
- Intra-feminist debates and their implications for coalition-building
- Interactions between feminist movements and institutions

By bringing together diverse empirical and theoretical approaches, this panel seeks to advance our understanding of how gender politics both shapes and is shaped by struggles over democracy today.

Chairs: Giada Bonu Rosenkranz, Aurora Perego

Discussants: Aurora Perego

Conservative Female Politicians in Germany: Critical Actors Against Anti-Feminism or Participants in the Anti-Trans Coalition?
Pauline Ahlhaus
Abstract

In Germany, the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is facing mounting pressure from the radical-right political party, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which espouses anti-gender discourse. Anti-feminism, frequently employed as a rhetorical instrument by far-right actors, serves as a discursive conduit into mainstream conservatism. Nevertheless, it is important to note the distinct ideological differences between the political positions of the AfD and those of the CDU. The former is known for its promotion of natalist politics and traditional marriage between a man and a woman. By contrast, the CDU has adopted a more progressive stance on sexual diversity, albeit only within the confines of a conservative framework that emphasises marriage as a lifelong union. The paper investigates the role of gender diversity in this political shift, focusing on how gender diversity and trans rights are becoming a central battleground in the CDU's efforts to maintain its democratic and centrist identity. The study explores the role of conservative female elites in the context of far-right anti-feminism and anti-trans backlash. It examines the ambiguous role of conservative women's organisations in contemporary debates about gender and democracy. In this context, the case of the CDU's women's organisation, the Frauen Union (FU), emerges as a crucial actor. Representing a centre-right party's women's organisation, the FU is committed to women's representation but partially avoids association with feminist movements. The FU is both targeted by and potentially complicit in the mainstreaming of anti-gender and anti-trans discourse. The central research question guiding this study is whether these elites function as critical actors in resisting these forms of anti-gender discourse, or whether they are enabling them under the guise of centrist moderation. The paper addresses this issue by drawing on the growing body of literature that is currently debating the anti-trans coalition. Recent scholarship has identified an emerging anti-trans coalition comprising right-wing populists, anti-gender movements, "gender critical feminists", and trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs). Despite denying direct coordination, these actors share overlapping goals. This diagnosis aligns with literature indicating a "shift to the left" within the stances of European centre right parties towards women's rights and gender equality, albeit one that has occurred only partially. While the traditional breadwinner model is gradually being superseded, even in countries such as Germany, a new divide between progressives and regressives is emerging along the question of gender diversity and the safeguarding of gender minority rights. Methodologically, the paper employs poststructuralist discourse theory and qualitative analysis, drawing on party documents, editions of the FU's magazine Frau & Politik, and semi-structured interviews with FU members. This approach facilitates an analysis of how discursive subject positions are offered, negotiated, and contested within the FU. Preliminary findings suggest that conservative female politicians employ a strategic approach to constructing subject positions, thereby maintaining democratic credibility while legitimising exclusionary gender norms. Despite members of the FU expressing concerns about the AfD's extremist tendencies, they simultaneously reproduce anti-feminist attitudes and present their positions as "moderate" in contrast to the radical right. This allows for a discursive convergence with anti-gender actors, despite the absence of formal alliances. The FU's adoption of gender-conservative stances, while upholding a centrist, pro-democracy identity, reflects and reinforces broader ideological alignment. In this manner, the FU demonstrates how democratic actors can contribute to the mainstreaming of illiberal ideologies, blurring the line between resistance and complicity. While FU advocates for women's issues and supports sexual minorities, it adopts key principles of anti-gender ideology, including opposition to gender-inclusive language, rejection of the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz (Gender Self-Identification Law), and endorsement of binary gender norms. These positions closely mirror far-right agendas, despite rhetorical distancing. This paradox enables the FU to present itself as a "democratic firewall" while materially contributing to the rollback of gender rights and liberal-democratic values. The paper suggests that the FU's role is best understood as one of ambivalent centrism: its members claim to defend democracy yet facilitate the erosion of inclusive gender politics. This positioning reveals the limitations of centrist resistance in times of democratic crisis, underscoring the need to reassess the democratic credentials of actors who oppose authoritarianism in principle but enable it through policy. Instead of acting as a shield against far-right gender backlash, the FU often serves as a conduit for mainstream legitimacy. These findings necessitate a re-evaluation of conventional binary categorisations of feminist versus anti-feminist actors with regard to gender diversity and gender minority rights, which are integral to the values of liberal democracies. The case study makes a contribution to ongoing debates on gendered democratic backsliding, the mainstreaming of anti-gender discourse, and the contested role of conservative women in shaping the future of gender minority rights and diversity within liberal democracy.

The Impact of Global De-democratization Trend on Women’s Political Empowerment in the 2000s
Senem Ertan, Asuman Özgür Keysan
Abstract

Reappropriating Traditional Femininity: Gendered Strategies and Democratic Contestation in Belarusian Protests
Diana Planida
Abstract

The Antifascism of Contemporary Feminist Movements in Italy: Content and Practices
Daniela Chironi, Chiara Pupillo
Abstract

Panel 12.8 Digital Leadership, Online Arenas and the Gendered Metapolitics of Far Right

Chairs: Elisa Bellè, Susi Meret

Discussants: Elisa Bellè

The limits of minority solidarity: Populist radical right women leaders and gender/sexual minorities
Sabine Volk, Marianna Griffini
Abstract

Far-right influencers: Using gender to mobilize
Susi Meret
Abstract

Femminismo neoliberale e far right. Un'analisi dell'agenda e della retorica di Giorgia Meloni sulle questioni di genere.
Noemi Ciarniello, Emiliana De Blasio
Abstract

Il contributo propone un’analisi critica del modo in cui Giorgia Meloni, Prima Ministra italiana e figura centrale della destra radicale contemporanea, mobilita temi e linguaggi riconducibili al femminismo neoliberale all’interno del proprio discorso pubblico. L’obiettivo è esaminare in che modo questa integrazione retorica contribuisca alla costruzione di una visione del mondo in cui emancipazione femminile, ordine sociale e appartenenza comunitaria coesistono in una sintesi ideologicamente coerente. Il femminismo neoliberale può essere descritto come una riformulazione del femminismo liberale in chiave individualista e orientata al mercato. Esso riconfigura i principi dell’autonomia e dell’uguaglianza in termini di responsabilità individuale, resilienza e valorizzazione del talento, aderendo alla logica autoimprenditoriale del soggetto neoliberale teorizzata da Foucault (1978, 1979). In questa prospettiva, le istanze femministe vengono tradotte in un discorso che promuove l’adattamento dell’individuo alle strutture esistenti piuttosto che la loro trasformazione. La riproduzione sociale – tradizionalmente esclusa dal campo dell’azione economica – viene così ricompresa nella razionalità neoliberale attraverso una “genderizzazione” dell’impresa di sé (Rottenberg 2013; Prugl 2015; Fraser 2013-2015; Cooper 2017; Gill 2017; Banet-Weiser 2015–2020; Eisenstein 2017). Il corpus analizzato comprende 45 testi – tra discorsi ufficiali, interviste televisive e a quotidiani nazionali, interventi parlamentari e dichiarazioni a riviste femminili – pronunciati o pubblicati tra luglio 2022 e gennaio 2025. Tali materiali sono stati esaminati mediante l’analisi critica del discorso (ACD), avvalendosi di una griglia costruita ad hoc. Essa tiene conto, in particolare, delle modalità di formulazione dei problemi e delle soluzioni proposte, dell’impiego di figure retoriche, delle scelte lessicali e delle afferenze simboliche attivate. Questa metodologia ha permesso di evidenziare le strategie attraverso cui i temi di genere vengono incorporati in un orizzonte discorsivo che tiene insieme liberalismo economico, conservatorismo culturale e identitarismo politico. L’analisi mostra come Meloni adotti un linguaggio centrato sull’idea di merito, scelta individuale e maternità come vocazione, che consente di neutralizzare la portata trasformativa delle rivendicazioni femministe. Il rifiuto esplicito del femminismo come etichetta viene così compensato da una narrazione che valorizza il successo personale in quanto donna, madre e leader, proiettando un modello esemplare di femminilità conciliabile con ruoli e gerarchie tradizionali. Lungi dal configurarsi come un semplice strumento comunicativo, questa retorica concorre alla produzione di un immaginario normativo, in cui l’autonomia femminile viene riconosciuta solo nella misura in cui si traduce in conferma dell’ordine esistente. L’integrazione selettiva di elementi del discorso femminista si rivela, dunque, funzionale alla costruzione di una grammatica politica che, pur facendo leva su lessici di modernizzazione, consolida visioni gerarchiche e comunitarie della società. Il contributo intende offrire una lettura del discorso melonianiano che ne metta in luce la dimensione simbolica e ideologica, nella quale la leadership femminile assume un valore esemplare non tanto per il suo potenziale trasformativo, quanto per la sua capacità di incarnare – e legittimare – l’equilibrio tra modernità retorica e restaurazione culturale. BIBLIOGRAFIA Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny. Durham: Duke University Press. Banet-Weiser, S., Gill, R., & Rottenberg, C. (2020). Postfeminism, popular feminism and neoliberal feminism? Sarah Banet-Weiser, Rosalind Gill and Catherine Rottenberg in conversation. Feminist Theory, 21(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700119842555 Cooper, M. (2017). Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism. New York: Zone Books. Eisenstein, H. (2017). Hegemonic feminism, neoliberalism and womenomics: ‘empowerment’ instead of liberation? New Formations, 91. Farris, S., & Rottenberg, C. (2017). Introduction: Righting Feminism. New Formations, 91, 5–15. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/671947 Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Foucault, M. (2014). On the Government of the Living: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1979–1980. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books. Fraser, N. (2016). Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review, (100), 99–117. Ghigi, R., & Rottenberg, C. (2019). Feminisms in neoliberal times. From neoconservative agendas to global protests. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 4, 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1423/96110 Gill, R. (2017). The affective, cultural and psychic life of postfeminism: A postfeminist sensibility 10 years on. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6), 606–626. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prügl, E. (2015). Neoliberalising Feminism. New Political Economy, 20(4), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2014.951614

Panel 12.9 Navigating Political Landscapes: Gender, Power, Space and Representation

Chairs: Francesca Feo, Seréna Nilsson Rabia

Discussants: Seréna Nilsson Rabia

Telling the Gendered Story: the construction of migrant subjectivities in UNHCR’s animated information campaign
Gaetano Giancaspro, Tutku Ayhan
Abstract

Policing Queer and Disabled Identities: An Intersectional Approach to Study Police Bias
Emanuele Murgolo
Abstract

Power at the Margins: Functional Diversity and Subaltern Counterpublics. An Intersectional Approach committed to Deepening Democracy in terms of Social Justice
Miriam Ureta García
Abstract

From Voters to Politicians: The Vanishing Gender Gap in Preferences
Ximena Calo, Riccardo Puglisi, Paola Profeta, Simona Scabrosetti
Abstract

In a representative democracy, the extent to which gender-specific policy preferences are transmitted through the stages of political selection is relevant for assessing the substantive quality of representation. Traditional models of electoral politics, such as the median voter theorem and probabilistic voting models, assume that candidates can credibly pre-commit to policy platforms. However, if commitment mechanisms are weak or absent, voters may instead rely on observable personal characteristics, such as gender, as signals of policy preferences—a mechanism at the core of the citizen-candidate model. While gender differences in political preferences are well-documented among the general public, less is known about how these differences manifest among political candidates and elected officials. This study examines whether gender gaps in policy preferences persist as individuals move through the political selection process, and how institutional contexts shape these patterns. Using cross-sectional data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and the Comparative Candidate Survey (CCS), we explore gender gaps in policy preferences among individuals, political candidates, and elected officials across 21 European countries spanning 2001 to 2021. Our analysis encompasses approximately 335,000 individuals and 37,000 candidates, examining attitudes across seven key policy domains: environmental protection, immigration (economic and cultural impacts), satisfaction with democracy, redistribution, same-sex rights, and law and order. We find that women consistently express more progressive policy preferences than men among the general public, but these gender gaps are narrower among candidates, and even less pronounced among elected officials. This pattern suggests an ideological convergence as individuals progress through the stages of political selection. The convergence is most pronounced on economic issues such as redistribution and the economic impact of immigration, where gender differences among politicians often become statistically insignificant. However, gender gaps remain sizable on certain identity-linked issues, particularly same-sex rights. This issue stands out as uniquely resistant to convergence, maintaining significant gender differences across all stages of political selection and ideological orientations. Right-leaning women are nearly as supportive of same-sex rights as their left-leaning counterparts relative to men, suggesting that gender plays a significant role independent of ideological positioning on this issue. The institutional context plays a crucial moderating role. Among politicians, gender gaps are more pronounced in countries with higher levels of political gender equality, as measured by the Political Gender Gap Global Index (POLGGGI). In these more inclusive contexts, the typical convergence between male and female politicians' preferences is less pronounced. Right-wing women in more inclusive contexts are particularly less likely to align fully with the average positions of their parties, instead maintaining distinct policy profiles that reflect greater proximity to women voters' preferences. This study contributes to our understanding of when and how gender matters for political representation. Rather than assuming a direct link between women's presence in office and policy outcomes favoring women, our findings highlight the need to consider how political institutions and selection processes shape the preferences of those who seek and attain political power. The results suggest that simply increasing women's numerical representation may be insufficient to ensure substantive representation of women's interests, particularly in less gender-inclusive political systems.

Choosing the best, managing the rest – unpacking the black box of party selection logics
Ida-Elise Seppola Asplund
Abstract

Over the past two decades, research on gender and political representation has extensively explored barriers some groups face in entering parliaments. These barriers have been attributed to factors such as supply and demand, voter bias, and gendered recruitment practices. Lately, a growing body of literature has emphasized the need to understand what makes or breaks the ability to stay in parliaments over time and thus become political seniors. While some existing studies have highlighted obstacles within parliamentary work, little is known about the critical role of nomination committees within political parties in shaping candidates' prospects for being selected to the top and staying there over time. This article argues that these committees, particularly in closed-list proportional representation (PR) systems, are pivotal in shaping initial parliamentary access and who gets to stay on and become political seniors. Previous studies on nomination processes have demonstrated that many parties are concerned with maximizing the representativeness of the list and, at the same time, rewarding experienced candidates. How considerations such as parliamentary experience and performance, name recognition, and gender matter for top selection and re-selection is less understood. This article advances our understanding of candidate selection and political representation by exploring this important yet understudied part of political careers. It does so by addressing the informal party nomination practices, through qualitative interviews with leaders and members of such nomination committees. The interview objects span across five Norwegian political parties and several electoral districts. By employing a thematic analysis (Butcher et al., 2001; Braun and Clarke, 2006), I elucidate the different considerations and assessments nomination committees weigh when ranking candidates and deciding who gets to stay and who must leave the top placements. I find that there are different selection logics for those at the top versus the rest of the list, and that political experience, personal charisma, and visibility are key to being placed at the top, while representational criteria are more important further down the list.

Panel 12.10 LGBTIQ+ Equality between Advancements and Oppositions: Policies, Actors, Arenas

Chairs: Elisabetta De Giorgi, Massimo Prearo

Discussants: Pamela Pansardi

Strategies of agenda denial: Far-right and anti-gender opposition to gender equality policies in Italy
Anna Lavizzari, Andrea Terlizzi
Abstract

In the Best Interest of Woman and Child: The Weaponization of Feminist Narratives in the Criminalization of Surrogacy in Italy
Giada Bonu Rosenkranz
Abstract

This paper investigates the paradoxical dynamics through which feminist narratives are mobilized to support exclusionary and punitive policies, focusing on the recent debate in Italy on the introduction of universal criminalization of surrogacy. While publicly framed as a protective measure for women - particularly those perceived as exploited in transnational gestational arrangements - the proposed legislation ultimately functions as a tool of symbolic persecution targeting LGBTQIA+ families, migrant women, and reproductive autonomy more broadly. The analysis situates this case within the broader framework of “counterintuitive welfare,” where policies presented as caring or emancipatory instead reinforce mechanisms of marginalization and discrimination. Specifically, the paper addresses the following research questions: • How are feminist arguments and the language of women’s rights mobilized in support of a punitive approach to surrogacy? • What narrative frames emerge from the parliamentary debate on the universal crime of surrogacy, and how do they construct categories of deserving and undeserving subjects? • To what extent does this case reflect a broader transformation of welfare from a tool of social inclusion to an instrument of symbolic exclusion and political polarization? This paper draws on interdisciplinary feminist theory and critical policy studies to explore the ambivalent role of women's rights discourse in contemporary welfare regimes. Within this perspective, welfare is not only a field of social support but also a mechanism of normative control, where distinctions between deserving and undeserving subjects are discursively produced and politically instrumentalized. The analysis is further informed by scholarship on the instrumentalization of rights discourse (Zivi 2012; Farris 2017), especially in contexts of anti-gender and nationalist politics. In particular, the paper situates the Italian case within the broader phenomenon of “femonationalism”- the strategic use of feminist language by conservative and right-wing actors to assert cultural superiority, moral order, and national identity, while marginalizing those who do not conform to normative models of gender, family, and citizenship (Colella 2021; Farris 2017; Möser 2022). The case of surrogacy has been documented as a compelling field where different feminist actors are competing, by putting forward different representation of social justice, empowerment and democracy (Ammaturo 2020; Corradi 2021; Mongibello 2024; Rubio Grundell 2024). This paper situates in this literature and proposing a step forward in the analysis, focusing on the case of the approval of the amendment to Article 12 of Law 40/2004 on medically assisted reproduction. Finally, the framework engages with recent literature on “counterintuitive welfare”, understood as a shift from the promise of social inclusion to the production of inequality through mechanisms of symbolic and material exclusion. In this view, the proposed universal criminalization of surrogacy represents not only a legal intervention but also a moralizing narrative that reconfigures women’s rights into tools of control - targeting queer families and those whose reproductive choices challenge dominant norms. In doing so, the paper engages with recent debates on how feminism is co-opted by conservative actors in the name of protecting women, while ultimately reinforcing patriarchal and heteronormative logics. This paper adopts a qualitative approach grounded in Critical Frame Analysis (CFA) (Verloo 2005; Lombardo et al. 2009) to investigate how feminist narratives are mobilized and reframed within political debates related to the approval of the amendment to Article 12 of Law 40/2004 and subsequent attempts to extend the criminalization of surrogacy as a universal crime. The empirical corpus includes 50 documents selected across three key domains: (1) institutional discourse - parliamentary debates in plenary and commission sessions, legislative texts, and explanatory reports; (2) civil society responses - public statements and position papers issued by feminist, LGBTQIA+ organizations, anti-gender actors and far-right parties; and (3) media discourse - opinion pieces and articles from a range of mainstream and ideological outlets. This triangulation enables a multi-level analysis of how frames circulate and resonate across political, activist, and public arenas. Particular attention is paid to the construction of subjects deemed “vulnerable,” “exploitative,” or “undeserving,” and to the emotional and moral registers through which care, control, and punishment are articulated. The goal is to uncover how a rhetoric of protection and rights is deployed to legitimize exclusionary policies and reinforce heteronormative and nationalist imaginaries. The analysis aims to show how the selective mobilization of feminist discourse serves to legitimize discriminatory policies under the guise of protecting vulnerable women - typically imagined as poor, racialized, and exploited - while erasing the agency of those who make reproductive choices outside normative frameworks. The paper argues that this case constitutes a paradigmatic example of “welfare against”, where legislative action generates social hierarchies, consolidates heteronormative citizenship, and contributes to the political persecution of groups already positioned as marginal. Ultimately, the paper seeks to contribute to a critical understanding of the shifting boundaries between care and control in contemporary welfare regimes. By focusing on the symbolic and political effects of the anti-surrogacy legislation, the paper exposes how women’s rights can be transformed into a weapon of exclusion - particularly in a context marked by democratic backsliding, anti-gender mobilizations, and the growing convergence between conservative moral orders and nationalist political agendas.

The Uneven Progress of LGBTQI+ Rights in the EU: A Comparative Analysis of the Determinants
Pamela Pansardi, Eugenio Salvati, Margherita Bordignon
Abstract

Policy Implementation Process of LGBTTTIQ+ Affirmative Actions in Oaxaca: Challenges and Lessons Drawn.
Paulina Morales Avila, Zuzana Fellegi
Abstract

Despite global advances in LGBTTTIQ+ rights, there are few mechanisms in place to promote and enforce their political representation worldwide. In this realm, Mexico represents one of the most advanced and progressive countries regarding LGBTTTIQ+ political rights, not only in Latin America but beyond. More specifically, the state of Oaxaca has pioneered a unique approach to the political inclusion of the LGBTTTIQ+ community through affirmative actions in the shape of quotas since 2021. Nonetheless, its policy implementation process has and continues to face challenges in proper policy formulation, execution, and enforcement, resistance from political parties and different actors involved, and in meeting the affirmative action policy goals. It is the uniqueness of the ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse context in which the policy implementation process of LGBTTTIQ+ electoral quotas has taken place that offers a groundbreaking case to rethink how quotas are designed and implemented in indigenous contexts. The research employs policy implementation theory to analyze Oaxaca’s implementation process, highlighting the unique socio-economic, political, and cultural context in which the process took place, and uncovering the main challenges and limitations the policy has and continues to face. Additionally, diffusion theory is used to assess how Oaxaca’s approach, rooted in Indigenous and state autonomy, was influenced and influenced the federally formulated policy from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. Diffusion theory is also used to inform whether Oaxaca’s process has the potential to be adapted by other states in Mexico, or other countries in Latin America and beyond, with a high percentage of indigenous population. The research employs a mixed-methods approach to analyze the policy implementation process and its diffusion. The qualitative aspect includes document analysis of guidelines on parity from recent electoral processes, as well as laws and documents where the policy is discussed and modified, and reports on LGBTTTIQ+ political representation by the local electoral body and civil society organizations and interviews with key actors. The quantitative aspect consists of statistical data analysis from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography on indigenous and LGBTTTIQ+ populations related to the policy formulation and execution. The research argues that Oaxaca’s policy implementation process of LGBTTTIQ+ quotas is unique in its approach as it incorporates and balances a strong indigenous presence and influence, traditional political and institutional structures, and quotas that escape binarism. It is argued that by closely looking at Oaxaca’s example, new methods and approaches to quotas can be uncovered and could be used for possible application in similar or simpler contexts. As for now, there have been analysis to the way affirmative actions are formulated in Mexico and their social impact, and on Oaxaca’s approach to gender parity quotas, nonetheless this research focuses in the implementation process of the policy to inform on areas of success, improvement and of key discoveries and development in the way quotas and affirmative actions are approached in an Indigenous setting. It is pertinent hereby to mention that, regardless of the challenges the policy has faced, Oaxaca has set a precedent in LGBTTTIQ+ quotas worldwide.

LGBTQIA+ Equality Policies in Southern Europe: A Comparison Between Italy and Portugal
Gaia Matilde Ripamonti, Elisabetta De Giorgi
Abstract

The ILGA Rainbow Map 2025, built on an index that rates European countries according to their legal and political practices towards the LGBTQIA+ community, shows considerable variation between EU countries. The existing literature has identified a number of factors which could potentially explain the variation in levels of equality policies. The demographic composition of the population – in which men, older people, and married people with children tend to have a lower level of support for LGBTQIA+ rights – is a salient factor. The socio-economic conditions of a country also exert influence. Moreover, policies on issues such as the rights of same-sex couples, and sexual orientation and gender identity in general, involve fundamental values and religion – even if the extent to which the latter, namely Christianity, influences people’s and politicians’ stances on LGBTQIA+ rights continue to be debated. Finally, politics is considered to be a key factor in the successful promotion and adoption of LGBTQIA+ policies. As observed with women’s issues, the so-called progressive parties usually adopt more favourable positions than the conservative ones. However, the national political context in which these parties operate can also have a significant impact on the outcomes of these processes. South European countries are characterised by a similar demographic configuration and socio-economic situation. With regard to the importance of religion in citizens’ lives, data from the Pew Research Centre (2022) show that these countries are ranked differently according to the importance that their citizens attach to religion. Yet according to the most recent ILGA Rainbow Map (2025), Spain has been ranked 5th (with a score of 77.97%), Greece 7th (69.18%), Portugal 11th (66.99%), and Italy 35th (24.41%). We believe that the disparities in LGBTQIA+ equality policies between these countries, notably Italy’s backwardness, require further investigation, in order to identify the factors contributing to this remarkable variation. The present paper consequently focuses on Portugal and Italy, respectively occupying the most advanced position in the ‘family’ category of the ILGA Rainbow Map and the poorest one in the Southern European group. We will examine the legislative process - initiatives, initiators, duration of the process and votes, as well as the parliamentary debate - in order to understand the factors that led, in one case, to the approval of LGBTQIA+ equality-oriented legislative proposals and in the other case to their halt over the past 20 years.

back to Sections and Panels index

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

September 2026