Gender inequality discourse as a tool to express attitudes towards Islam

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Social and Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.5964/jspp.9621
P. Van Oost, Sarah Leveaux, O. Klein, Vincent Yzerbyt
{"title":"Gender inequality discourse as a tool to express attitudes towards Islam","authors":"P. Van Oost, Sarah Leveaux, O. Klein, Vincent Yzerbyt","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In order to promote their anti-immigration agenda, many politicians resort to gender equality discourse, often suggesting that national or European values should be protected against Islam that subordinates women. This co-occurrence of racist and anti-sexist arguments is striking because research generally shows that people with racist views and lower levels of egalitarianism tend to have more sexist attitudes. In this study, we use textual data to examine whether this co-occurrence emerges in lay people’s discourses and how it relates to their ideological positions. Drawing on data collected via an online questionnaire with French-speaking Belgians (N = 500) and using statistical text analyses, we investigate participants’ responses to open-ended questions pertaining to their conception of European lifestyle, the relation between Islam and Christian religions, and Islam and feminism. We find that participants with right-wing political orientation and higher levels of system justification associate women’s rights with European way of life more than other participants, perceive Islam and Christianity as more different, and perceive Islam as incompatible with feminism. They justify their views using gender equality arguments. In contrast, left-wing participants do not see feminism and Islam as incompatible and blame both religions for being an obstacle to gender equality. As a set, our findings confirm that people with right-wing political orientation and higher levels of system justification tend to exploit the issue of gender equality to promote their anti-egalitarian views towards Islam. In view of the widespread and normative support for gender equality in many Western countries, this phenomenon is particularly treacherous.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"34 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In order to promote their anti-immigration agenda, many politicians resort to gender equality discourse, often suggesting that national or European values should be protected against Islam that subordinates women. This co-occurrence of racist and anti-sexist arguments is striking because research generally shows that people with racist views and lower levels of egalitarianism tend to have more sexist attitudes. In this study, we use textual data to examine whether this co-occurrence emerges in lay people’s discourses and how it relates to their ideological positions. Drawing on data collected via an online questionnaire with French-speaking Belgians (N = 500) and using statistical text analyses, we investigate participants’ responses to open-ended questions pertaining to their conception of European lifestyle, the relation between Islam and Christian religions, and Islam and feminism. We find that participants with right-wing political orientation and higher levels of system justification associate women’s rights with European way of life more than other participants, perceive Islam and Christianity as more different, and perceive Islam as incompatible with feminism. They justify their views using gender equality arguments. In contrast, left-wing participants do not see feminism and Islam as incompatible and blame both religions for being an obstacle to gender equality. As a set, our findings confirm that people with right-wing political orientation and higher levels of system justification tend to exploit the issue of gender equality to promote their anti-egalitarian views towards Islam. In view of the widespread and normative support for gender equality in many Western countries, this phenomenon is particularly treacherous.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将性别不平等言论作为表达对伊斯兰教态度的工具
为了推动他们的反移民议程,许多政客诉诸于性别平等的论调,经常暗示应该保护国家或欧洲的价值观,反对使妇女处于从属地位的伊斯兰教。种族主义和反性别歧视论点的同时出现令人震惊,因为研究普遍表明,持有种族主义观点和平等主义水平较低的人往往持有更多的性别歧视态度。在本研究中,我们使用文本数据来研究这种并存现象是否出现在非专业人士的话语中,以及它与他们的意识形态立场之间的关系。通过对讲法语的比利时人(N = 500)进行在线问卷调查,并使用统计文本分析,我们调查了参与者对开放式问题的回答,这些问题涉及他们对欧洲生活方式的看法、伊斯兰教与基督教的关系以及伊斯兰教与女权主义。我们发现,与其他参与者相比,具有右翼政治倾向和较高系统合理性水平的参与者更倾向于将妇女权利与欧洲生活方式联系起来,认为伊斯兰教与基督教的差异更大,并认为伊斯兰教与女权主义不相容。她们用性别平等的论据来证明自己的观点。相比之下,左翼参与者并不认为女权主义与伊斯兰教不相容,并指责这两种宗教是性别平等的障碍。综上所述,我们的研究结果证实,政治倾向右翼、系统合理性水平较高的人倾向于利用性别平等问题来宣扬他们对伊斯兰教的反平等观点。鉴于性别平等在许多西方国家得到广泛和规范的支持,这种现象尤为危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Journal of Social and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
43
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.
期刊最新文献
Heterosexist system justification: Identity and ideology explain variability in sexual minorities’ opposition to homophobia and support for LGBTQ+ rights Predicting radicalism after perceived injustice: The role of separatist identity, sacred values, and police violence Gender inequality discourse as a tool to express attitudes towards Islam Colonial mechanisms for repudiating indigenous sovereignties in Australia: A Foucauldian-genealogical exploration of Australia day ‘Warming up’ to populist leaders: A comparative analysis of Argentina and Spain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1