{"title":"民粹主义激进右翼的男性和女性选民:他们像苹果和橙子吗?","authors":"Daniel Stockemer, M. Normandin","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, Stockemer and Normandin test whether recent developments in the populist radical right’s messaging, such as the strategic introduction of gender equality in these parties’ political discourse and their evolution towards economic chauvinism, has changed women’s and men’s propensity to vote for the populist radical right. Using data from the eighth wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), the authors find that two traditional explanations for the gender gap in voting for the populist radical right have lost their explanatory power. First, their results indicate that the ideological moderation hypothesis no longer applies; that is, anti-immigration sentiment and a rightist ideology are currently as much of a reason to cast their ballot for the populist radical right for female voters as they are for male voters. Second, they no longer find support that economic dissatisfaction is a stronger driver for men than for women to vote for the populist radical right. Rather, their results indicate the contrary. In addition, they find that education is more of a bulwark against supporting the populist radical right for women. Finally, their results illustrate that older men are more likely to vote for the populist radical right than older women.","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":"56 1","pages":"41 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Men and women voters of the populist radical right: are they like apples and oranges?\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Stockemer, M. Normandin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this article, Stockemer and Normandin test whether recent developments in the populist radical right’s messaging, such as the strategic introduction of gender equality in these parties’ political discourse and their evolution towards economic chauvinism, has changed women’s and men’s propensity to vote for the populist radical right. Using data from the eighth wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), the authors find that two traditional explanations for the gender gap in voting for the populist radical right have lost their explanatory power. First, their results indicate that the ideological moderation hypothesis no longer applies; that is, anti-immigration sentiment and a rightist ideology are currently as much of a reason to cast their ballot for the populist radical right for female voters as they are for male voters. Second, they no longer find support that economic dissatisfaction is a stronger driver for men than for women to vote for the populist radical right. Rather, their results indicate the contrary. In addition, they find that education is more of a bulwark against supporting the populist radical right for women. Finally, their results illustrate that older men are more likely to vote for the populist radical right than older women.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patterns of Prejudice\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"41 - 60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patterns of Prejudice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071291\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHNIC STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patterns of Prejudice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071291","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
在本文中,Stockemer和Normandin检验了民粹主义极右翼信息传递的最新发展,如在这些政党的政治话语中战略性地引入性别平等及其向经济沙文主义的演变,是否改变了女性和男性投票给民粹主义极右翼的倾向。利用欧洲社会调查(European Social Survey, ESS)第八波的数据,作者发现,对于民粹主义极右翼在投票中的性别差异,两种传统解释已经失去了解释力。首先,他们的研究结果表明,意识形态节制假说不再适用;也就是说,对女性选民来说,反移民情绪和右翼意识形态是支持民粹主义激进右翼的理由,而对男性选民来说也是如此。其次,他们不再认为,对经济的不满是促使男性比女性更倾向于投票支持民粹主义激进右翼的因素。相反,他们的研究结果恰恰相反。此外,他们发现,教育更像是反对支持民粹主义激进女权的堡垒。最后,他们的结果表明,老年男性比老年女性更有可能投票给民粹主义激进右翼。
Men and women voters of the populist radical right: are they like apples and oranges?
ABSTRACT In this article, Stockemer and Normandin test whether recent developments in the populist radical right’s messaging, such as the strategic introduction of gender equality in these parties’ political discourse and their evolution towards economic chauvinism, has changed women’s and men’s propensity to vote for the populist radical right. Using data from the eighth wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), the authors find that two traditional explanations for the gender gap in voting for the populist radical right have lost their explanatory power. First, their results indicate that the ideological moderation hypothesis no longer applies; that is, anti-immigration sentiment and a rightist ideology are currently as much of a reason to cast their ballot for the populist radical right for female voters as they are for male voters. Second, they no longer find support that economic dissatisfaction is a stronger driver for men than for women to vote for the populist radical right. Rather, their results indicate the contrary. In addition, they find that education is more of a bulwark against supporting the populist radical right for women. Finally, their results illustrate that older men are more likely to vote for the populist radical right than older women.
期刊介绍:
Patterns of Prejudice provides a forum for exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other. It probes the language and construction of "race", nation, colour, and ethnicity, as well as the linkages between these categories. It encourages discussion of issues at the top of the public policy agenda, such as asylum, immigration, hate crimes and citizenship. As none of these issues are confined to any one region, Patterns of Prejudice maintains a global optic, at the same time as scrutinizing intensely the history and development of intolerance and chauvinism in the United States and Europe, both East and West.