Engaging with research on protest participation and gender inequalities, we examine how gender dynamics play a crucial role in shaping patterns of protest participation across the rural/urban divide. We argue that moving from a rural toward an urban setting leads to an increase in protest participation for women, but not for men. Using an original two-wave panel survey dataset collected for the same individuals between 2018 and 2019 and covering nine European countries, we are able to go beyond traditional correlation analyses and measure our key variables over time, thus developing a dynamic approach that links differences in gender, socio-geographical positioning and protest participation. Our findings demonstrate that the rural/urban divide as a driver of protest participation affects women and men differently, because it might be shaped by different experiences of political socialization, socio-economic status and structures of domination and discrimination, leading to different opportunities and incentives for mobilization.
BazurliRPortosM (2021) Crook! The impact of perceived corruption on non-electoral forms of political behaviour. International Political Science Review42(2): 245–260.
2.
BleeK (2002) Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
BlossfeldH-PRohwerG (1997) Causal inference, time and observation plans in the social sciences. Quality and Quantity31(4): 361–384.
4.
BurnsN (2007) Gender in the aggregate, gender in the individual, gender and political action. Politics & Gender3: 104–124.
5.
BurnsNSchlozmanKVerbaS (2001) The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
ChantS (2013) Cities through a ‘gender lens’: A golden ‘urban age’ for women in the global South?Environment and Urbanization25(1): 9–29.
7.
ConwayMMAhernDWSteuernagelGA (2004) Women and Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena, 2nd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
8.
DaltonRJVan SickleAWeldonS (2010) The individual–institutional nexus of protest behaviour. British Journal of Political Science40(1): 51–73.
9.
Della PortaD (2015) Social Movements in Times of Austerity: Bringing Capitalism Back into Protest Analysis. Oxford: Polity Press.
EvansA (2019) How cities erode gender inequality: A new theory and evidence from Cambodia. Gender & Society33(6): 961–984.
18.
FerreeMMGamsonWAGerhardsJ, et al. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
FoosFde RooijEA (2016) All in the family: Partisan disagreement and electoral mobilization in intimate networks – a spillover experiment. American Journal of Political Science61(2): 289–304.
20.
ForemanA (1977) Femininity as Alienation: Women and the Family in Marxism and Psychoanalysis. London: Pluto.
21.
FudgeD (2020) Geographic differences of individual views toward the role of government. American Review of Politics37(2): 71–96.
22.
GalaisCBlaisA (2016) Beyond rationalization: Voting out of duty or expressing duty after voting?International Political Science Review37(2): 213–229.
23.
GimpelJGLovinNMoyB, et al. (2020) The urban–rural gulf in American political behavior. Political Behavior42(4): 1343–1368.
24.
GiugniMGrassoMT (eds) (2021) Youth and Politics in Times of Increasing Inequalities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
GrassoMTGiugniM (2016) Protest participation and economic crisis: The conditioning role of political opportunities. European Journal of Political Research55(4): 663–680.
26.
HansonS (2010) Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place & Culture17(1): 5–23.
27.
HoogheMStolleD (2004) Good girls go to the polling booth, bad boys go everywhere. Women & Politics26(3–4): 1–23.
InglehartRNorrisP (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
JanowitzM (1975) Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology81(1): 82–108.
31.
KantolaJLombardoE (2017) Gender and Political Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
KileyKVaiseyS (2020) Measuring stability and change in personal culture using panel data. American Sociological Review85(3): 477–506.
33.
KitanovaM (2019) Youth political participation in the EU: Evidence from a cross-national analysis. Journal of Youth Studies23(7): 819–836.
34.
KriesiH (2003) The transformation of cleavage politics: The 1997 Stein Rokkan lecture. European Journal of Political Research33(2): 165–185.
35.
KurlychekMC (2014) Social control. In: BruinsmaGWeisburdD (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Springer, 4899–4908.
36.
LanierCMaumeMO (2009) Intimate partner violence and social isolation across rural/urban divide. Violence Against Women15(11): 1311–1330.
37.
LavizzariA (2020) Protesting Gender: The LGBTIQ Movement and its Opponents in Italy. London: Routledge.
38.
LavizzariAPortosM (2021) Disclosing inequalities: Gender and patterns of political participation among the Italian youth. In: GiugniMGrassoMT (eds) Youth and Politics in Times of Increasing Inequalities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 83–105.
39.
LindqvistASendénMGRenströmEA (2021) What is gender, anyway: A review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychology & Sexuality12(4): 332–344.
40.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, vol. 7. New York, NY: Free Press.
41.
McAdamD (1986) Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology92(1): 64–90.
42.
McAdamD (1992) Gender as a mediator of the activist experience: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology97(5): 1211–1240.
43.
MeloDFStockemerD (2014) Age and political participation in Germany, France and the UK: A comparative analysis. Comparative European Politics12(1): 33–53.
44.
MillerBNichollsW (2013) Social movements in urban society: The city as a space of politicization. Urban Geography34(4): 452–473.
45.
NorrisP (2003) Young people and political activism: From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice? In: Council of Europe Symposium, Strasbourg, November 2003.
46.
NorrisPWalgraveSVan AelstP (2005) Does protest signify disaffection? Demonstrators in a postindustrial democracy. Comparative Politics37(2): 189–205.
47.
PainR (1991) Space, sexual violence and social control: Integrating geographical and feminist analyses of women’s fear of crime. Progress in Human Geography15(4): 415–431.
48.
PirroALPPortosM (2021) Populism between voting and non-electoral participation. West European Politics44(3): 558–584.
49.
PittsJHopeT (1997) The local politics of inclusion: The state and community safety. Social Policy and Administration31(5): 37–58.
50.
PortosM (2019) Divided we stand, (oftentimes) united we fight: Generational bridging in Spain’s feminist movement and the cycle of antiausterity mobilizations. American Behavioral Scientist63(10): 1447–1468.
51.
PortosM (2021) Grievances and Public Protests: Political Mobilization in Spain in the Age of Austerity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
QuarantaM (2015) Political Protest in Western Europe. Exploring the Role of Context in Political Action. Heidelberg, Germany/New York, NY: Springer.
53.
RismanBJ (2004) Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society18(4): 429–450.
54.
RobnettB (1997) How Long? African-American Women in the Struggle for Civil Rights. New York, NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
RothSSaundersC (2019) Gender differences in political participation: Comparing street demonstrators in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Sociology53(3): 571–589.
56.
SampsonRJGrovesWB (1989) Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology94(4): 774–802.
57.
SampsonRJMorenoffJDEarlsF (1999) Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review64(5): 633–660.
58.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSWEarlsF (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277(5328): 918–924.
59.
SchussmanASouleSA (2005) Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces84(2): 1083–1108.
60.
SinclairB (2012) The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
61.
SloamJ (2016) Diversity and voice: The political participation of young people in the European Union. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations18(3): 521–537.
62.
SpainD (2014) Gender and urban space. Annual Review of Sociology40: 581–598.
63.
SpainD (2016) Women’s Spaces and Women’s Rights in the American City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
64.
StolleDMichelettiM (2005) The gender gap reversed. In: O’NeillBGidengilE (eds) Gender and Social Capital. London: Routledge, 45–72.
65.
TarrowSG (1971) The urban–rural cleavage in political involvement: The case of France. American Political Science Review65(2): 341–357.
66.
TarrowSG (1996) States and opportunities: The political structuring of social movements. In: McAdamDMcCarthyJDZaldM (eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilising Structures and Cultural Framing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–61.
67.
TaylorV (1996) Rock-a-by Baby: Feminism, Self-Help, and Postpartum Depression. New York, NY: Routledge.
68.
TaylorV (1999) Gender and social movements: Gender processes in women’s self-help movements. Gender & Society13(1): 8–33.
69.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
VráblíkováK (2014) How context matters? Mobilization, political opportunity structures and non-electoral political participation in old and new democracies. Comparative Political Studies47(2): 203–229.
71.
WebsdaleN (2002) Rural Woman Battering and the Justice System: An Ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
