Unpacking the Far Right’s Gender Politics
Photo by Thiago Rocha
Wherever you are situated, if I were to ask you if the following measures are left-wing, right-wing, extremist, bipartisan, or apartisan, what would you say?
Ensuring women are not penalized in their careers when they become mothers
Adopting measures to support women seeking to become mothers
Aiding those trying to combine work and family-care, especially when there’s a sick family member
Paying a bonus to parents of a newborn baby
Protecting women from violence
Maybe you thought they were neutral, or even progressive.
In fact, the measures above were promoted in a recent speech by Yolanda Merelo, a Spanish far-right senator. A speech in which she also emphasized – following the party line of Spain’s far-right Vox party – that the gender gap doesn’t really exist, what does is the “motherhood gap”, which describes the gap between men and women that ensues when the latter become mothers. This gap should be the focus of government action, she argued, not advancing policies inspired by so-called “gender ideology.”
The speech encapsulates something typical of the far right’s “gender agenda”, namely that this agenda is often a cacophony of proposals and approaches, a mishmash of ideas that have left- and right-wing provenance. In this case, the Spanish far right is putting forth what might otherwise be interpreted as social support for an undersupported group (women), but it will do so as long as it is connected to a specific role, that of mother. These are policies that have been traditionally proposed by left-wing politicians now inspired by a notion of women as “the mothers of the nation”, women who will support the survival of “our people” – presented as being under threat from outsiders, “the Other.”
There are a few themes that are shared amongst far-right movements on gender:
Familialism, a stance that views the traditional family as the foundation of the nation. As a result, individuals’ reproductive rights (women’s in particular) are subjugated to this project. Lifestyles that do not include a parental role are opposed;
Parenthood, in this way, is essential to perpetuating the nativist project, the nation and its pure people
An emphasis on “biological differences between men and women and traditional gender norms that fulfill these biological attributes”;
Opposition to so-called “gender ideology”. “Gender ideology” is a catchall “concept adopted by a global movement to articulate opposition to gender equality, abortion, sexual education, and LGBTQ rights in areas such as marriage, adoption, surrogacy, and reproductive technologies.”
But beyond these common threads, in matters of gender there are actually many differences within and between far right parties and movements in different parts of the world. The far right often adopts liberal frames when convenient, but across the board we observe a more mixed bag of narratives and policy proposals.
This divergence speaks to the malleability of their gender agenda to suit strategic goals and stands in contrast to what we see, for example, on migration, where authoritarian populist actors share essentially the same playbook. In the words of scholar Niels Spierings, as a populist radical right (PRR) issue, “gender is ‘trivotal’: a combination of trivial, meaning that it is not at the PRR’s ideological core, and pivotal, meaning a core social relation that is instrumentalized to center and emphasize the PRR ideology.” It has also proven useful to spread moral panics on which extremists can capitalize.
Capitalizing on liberal frames, sometimes…
To authoritarian populist actors, the ideological origins – if we can call them that – of discourse and policy proposals on gender issues are not that important, because what matters is advancing the nativist project, and whatever works, works. Even more so, they claim to speak for “the people,” and thus if they are in a place where abortion or same sex marriage are widely accepted, they might opt to support them as they are speaking for the “common man,” not for the left or right. Supporting women’s rights and LGBTQ+ issues are sometimes convenient to bolster other, more important, “battles,” such as countering the “great replacement” or framing migrants as a threat.
How gender is deployed in discourses is particularly flexible, as far-right actors sometimes advocate for fixed biologically-rooted roles, and in other times for female empowerment. Gender politics are particularly malleable when discussing “the Other” (Mayer et al 2014). Ahead of the Italian elections, for example, far-right politician Giorgia Meloni’s Twitter didn’t include many references to gender, but she did bring up violence against women when useful to portray migrants as a threat.
In Denmark, Sweden, and France, far-right leaders can more accurately be labeled as femonationalists or homonationalists: they will defend advances in women’s and LGBTQ+ rights and promote a vision of their nation as caring of both collectives, which… you guessed it, are under threat from migrants and Muslims. Feminism and LGBTQ+ rights are thus deployed to stigmatize migrants and Muslims.
Deploying Anti-colonial Frames Against “Gender Ideology”
In contrast, in more traditionally conservative countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Russia, far-right actors have adopted a frame of anti-colonialism. LGBTQ+ rights (feminists, the gay lobby) are presented as Western-backed elites who colonize everyone else (as they did in the past), want to impose their values on the world, and destroy tradition. They are framed as globalized and part of a dangerous globalist/multicultural agenda. This, is worth noting, has long been a strategy of leaders across African nations who seize anti-colonial sentiment to attack LGBTQ+ rights.
While some actors shift as convenient, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is perhaps one of the most ideologically consistent leaders: to bolster his image he deploys the concept of “gender ideology”, a convenient bogeymen, to which he stands against on behalf of the women of the nation, who are to be protected and supported in having children. Furthermore, consistent with a familialist view of the nation, gender inequality is not to be dismantled because it is the logical consequence of biological differences and homosexuality is foreign, in this case, a Western import.
Labeling women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights as an ideology - rather than as human rights, love, or deeply natural - is strategic, as it moves issues such as queer love or gender equality to the realm of ideas, something you can believe in or not. “Gender ideology” thus becomes a non-specific umbrella term that encompasses a range of purportedly dangerous ideas (said to endanger your children and way of life) that can be called upon in a pithy expression, and connected to dehumanized others that pose a threat.
In the world of Orbán, advancements in women’s and LGBTQ+ rights are a European imposition (following the colonialist line), and thus any EU statements on this matter are utilized to bolster an anti-EU agenda internally. Orbán will go as far as to make his push against gender equality policies a central aspect of his internal and external policy. Most recently, Orbán blocked a migration deal between the EU and a number of Global South nations which included the latter taking back people deported from the EU (which should otherwise be completely aligned with Hungarian migration rhetoric) over gender equality provisions included in the deal.
International action against Orbán’s regressive gender policies underscore his arguments. In July 2022, the EU Commission referred Hungary to the EU Court of Justice as it deemed that the Hungarian Child Protection Law “discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.” With Germany joining the case a few days ago, there are now 15 member states that have joined the case against Hungary. But far from posing a threat to Orbán, this case will likely be an opportunity, as it allows him to continue redefining his view of the nation (respectful of traditional values, standing up against foreign impositions, etc) and present himself as ready to protect children and family values.
Femininity at the Service of Whitewashing
While Orbán continues to push for an archaic notion of women and gender roles (or rather, to deny the existence of gender), other far-right leaders utilize gender politics for different ends
Evidence suggests that defending certain women’s rights makes extremists movements more palatable, for audiences that would have otherwise feared supporting them. This is even more so when those at the helm of the parties are women themselves, like Italian PM Giorgia Meloni or French Rassemblement National leader Marine LePen. Standing up for women’s work - family life balance or against domestic violence (not gender-based violence, as gender is denied) allows these movements to break from their fascist ancestors, which legitimized violence against women and their subjugation.
Furthermore, female far-right leaders help soften the image of their parties which helps them to go mainstream (may I add, it is my theory that in Western and Northern Europe, if authoritarian populist leaders access power or come close to it, it will be women as Giorgia Meloni in Italy or Isabel Ayuso in Madrid already have, or LePen has come close to).
Picture 1: “GIORGIA MELONI. Women, let’s free our power” in the cover of Grazia Magazine
Picture 2: Italian PM Giorgia Meloni and French far-right leader Marine LePen take a selfie, posted on Meloni’s official Facebook page
I recently came across Giorgia Meloni on the cover of a fashion and gossip magazine at the airport. Soft smile, clothes and earrings that complement her blue eyes, femininity and styling skillfully deployed to soften her image
Culture war opportunism
The far right is opportunistic. According to scholar Ashley Matteis, far-right actors have adopted a culture war strategy because culture is seen as upstream from politics, thus one can change politics through culture. Same sex marriage, abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, trans rights, etc. are framed as cultural matters, as ideological impositions.
Take the case of same sex marriage, abortion, and trans rights in the United States of America. As reported recently in the New York Times, same sex marriage was an issue that for years galvanized conservatives, butonce the US Supreme court declared same sex marriage a constitutional right, the issue was no longer useful to mobilize.
Enter transgender rights. As reported in the article: “We knew we needed to find an issue that the candidates were comfortable talking about,” said Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group. “And we threw everything at the wall.”
Transgender issues are highly complex and most people don’t know transgender folks—in some ways creating the context for the perfect scapegoat to fear and other. Most importantly, as transgender issues connect to people’s identities, they are particularly sensitive, and have been skillfully connected to children, unfortunately. As writer Shon Faye explains in her book The Transgender Issue, “narratives perpetuated about trans children, particularly in schools, by headlines like ‘Children Sacrificed to Appease Trans Lobby’ or ‘Cult of Gender Identity is Harming Children’, are intended to alarm the public - it’s impossible to draw any other conclusion from the language used [...].”
Fear-based narratives about transgender rights have become an effective tool to easily activate anxiety and emotion. Once an issue engenders moral panic, it becomes easier to promote retrograde policy changes and punitive measures. Across Europe and the US, they have also proved useful to embolden divide and conquer tactics.
Policy agenda - learning from each other
While the far-right’s “policy menu” is clear on migration and still unknown on climate, when it comes to gender there are a range of options that we can anticipate based on what analogues in other countries are doing and by looking into the past.
In a way, the policy menu is characterized by:
Highly emotive and visceral language and proposals
Turning back into the past and to their analogues in other countries
Opportunism and divide and conquer tactics
When the Spanish far-right party Vox came into power as a coalition partner in the autonomous community of Castilla y León, for example, one of their first initiatives was to force health workers to offer women seeking an abortion to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus and see a 4D ultrasound. This proposal was particularly activating because it would bring about a change in protocols aimed at combating abortions and does so in a uniquely evocative way.
This proposal imitates what has already been advanced in other countries such as Hungary and Poland, but also shows the strategic acumen of the far right. When certain policies cannot be advanced at the national level, the battleground can move more successfully to the subnational level, as is clear in this Spanish example and even more evident in the US.
The idea that LGBTQ+ and trans rights pose a threat to kids is an interpretation that for decades has been deliberately seeped to the collective imaginary, thus presenting education policies as perfect territory to activate anxieties, or at least, doubt. And sometimes all you need is to spread fear and distrust in highly emotive ways.
One’s far-right contemporaries can provide inspiration, but there is also a plethora of past laws that one can adapt. In 1988, the British government passed Section 28, a series of laws that installed the “Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material”. This law, which wasn’t repealed until 2003, had horrible consequences on the lives of innumerable amounts of people. This legislation is now the inspiration for new legislation passed by authoritarian populists across the globe. One needs only look at the Florida Don’t Say Gay bill, which is strongly reminiscent of the British Act as well as Hungarian legislation. As this article titled Florida’s ‘Orban’ Renewal Project in the American Conservative states, “Yes, Ron DeSantis's new education plans are reminiscent of Hungarian conservatism. That's a feature, not a bug.” (I recommend reading this article to understand the rationale behind support for De Santis’s proposals).
These policies—and many others—are branded as family values and child protection, which makes them far more palatable. It is an approach that is by no means unique to European and American actors but one that can be seen across the globe. In late March, Ugandan lawmakers passed some of the most restrictive legislation on LGBTQ+ rights in the world, even making some acts punishable by death penalty. As reported, “opposition lawmaker Asuman Basalirwa introduced the Anti Homosexuality Bill 2023 to parliament, saying it aims to ‘protect our church culture; the legal, religious and traditional family values of Ugandans from the acts that are likely to promote sexual promiscuity in this country.’” In parallel, Ghanaian lawmakers have been trying to pass the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill since 2021.
Cooperate, Divide, and Conquer
Cooperation amongst far-right activists on gender expands far beyond inspiration. There are shared strategies, tactics, and funding.
Advocacy outside of abortion clinics is a clear example. Journalist Jessica Bateman has documented how the Texas-based group 40 Days for Life has brought its aggressive tactics to more than 1,000 cities in 65 countries. Or in a different context, some US leaders are aslo promoting homophobia in African states.
But where they might be stronger—and most likely to succeed—is at cultivating breaking amongst those they stand against, or, sadly, just watching it happen and fanning the flames.
Groups that might otherwise be in solidarity are expending energy in-fighting rather than coalition building, rather than bridging. One element of an issue that otherwise should be consensual becomes so heated that it dominates public discourse. Individuals become reduced to an opinion they may have on a certain topic, their identities flattened to that particular point. Affective polarization occurs amongst those who should be natural allies.
This breaking impacts public opinion to the extent that some ideas become common knowledge even if they are not true.
In February 2023, Spain approved a reform of trans and abortion law. This law “means that 16- and 17-year-olds in Spain can now undergo an abortion without parental consent. Period products will now be offered free in schools and prisons, while state-run health centers will do the same with hormonal contraceptives and the morning-after pill. The menstrual leave measure allows workers suffering debilitating period pain to take paid time off.” For the trans community, this law allows “any citizen over 16 years old to change their legally registered gender without medical supervision.”
But for all of these measures, the debate centered so much around self-determination framed as a contentious topic and puberty blockers, that many Spaniards would believe that a central component of this law is hormonal treatment, which it does not regulate.
Gender politics will likely take an increasingly central role in our societies, but perhaps in a different form than in prior generations, when there was great focus, for example, on discrimination against women in the workplace. What gives me hope is that public opinion on most issues is actually quite settled. In many societies, abortion and same sex marriage are widely accepted, and while views on gender identity are complex, even in places as fragmented as the US, most support protecting trans people against discrimination.
In other words, authoritarian populists are not necessarily responding to what the public wants when it comes to gender and LGBTQ+ issues. This is supply driven.
In other news…
Lots of strategic litigation going on:
In the US, “abortion goes to the Supreme Court (again).”
In the EU, campaigners are taking the EU to court for labeling gas and nuclear as green energy, which they say will divest resources from renewals to these other energy sources. Campaigners are not alone, “Spain, Denmark and others had argued it was not credible to label gas, a CO2-emitting fossil fuel, as climate-friendly. Poland, Bulgaria and others said gas investments were needed to help them phase out more CO2-intensive coal plants. The Commission is also facing a legal challenge from the Austrian government, seeking to reject the green label for gas and nuclear.”
And for the soul…
Writer Maggie Smith shares a list of poems with joy in mind. I really liked “The Orange” by Wendy Cope:
[...]
And that orange, it made me so happy,
As ordinary things often do
Just lately. The shopping. A walk in the park.
This is peace and contentment. It’s new.
The rest of the day was quite easy.
I did all the jobs on my list
And enjoyed them and had some time over.
I love you. I’m glad I exist.
Connecting the Dots: Musings on Bridging and Belonging is a monthly column by Míriam Juan-Torres. In it, Míriam reflects on current events, connecting the trends and considering the specificities across countries, applying a bridging and belonging lens and translating concepts from academia for a wider audience. In Connecting the Dots, Míriam carefully curates readings and resources to further expand our understanding and shed light on the complexities of our time. Join our mailing list to stay up to date on the latest of the Democracy & Belonging Forum's curated analysis from Miriam and more.
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the authors.