Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper contributes to the literature by examining gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement among young people from a comparative perspective. By analysing data on young people from nine European countries collected in 2018, we examine gender inequalities in participation in various modes of conventional and unconventional activism as well as related attitudes, broader political engagement and key determinants, cross-nationally, in order to provide a detailed picture of the current state of gender inequalities in political activism among young people in Europe. Our results allow us to speak to extant theorising about gender inequalities by showing that the extent of political inequality between young men and women is less marked than one might expect. While the gender gaps in political participation for activities such as confrontational types of protest are small or absent, we find that young women are actually more active in petitioning, boycotting, and volunteering in the community. Young men instead are more active than young women in a majority of the nine countries analysed with respect to more institutional forms of participation linked to organizations and parties, various types of online political participation, and broader political engagement measures, such as internal political efficacy and consumption of political news through various channels. However, young men also appear to be more sceptical at least of certain aspects of democratic practice relative to young women.

Keywords

gender inequalities political engagement political participation young people youth politics

Introduction

Political participation is fundamental for democratic government since it allows the people to have a say in how society is run (Bessant and Grasso, 2019). However, research has documented important inequalities in political engagement within populations (Giugni and Grasso, 2021). In particular, studies have examined gender inequalities, finding mixed evidence. Today, across the globe, we have made strides towards gender equality and as such one might expect to find smaller political inequalities between women and men, particularly among the youngest generations. Is this the case? Is there a significant difference in the level and types of political participation between young men and women? To analyse these questions, we look at recent evidence from an original survey conducted in 2018 across nine European countries and focus on young people, that is, those aged 18–34 when the data were collected: born between 1984 and 2000, so, Millennials or Gen Y-ers. This focus on young people from a comparative perspective is key for contributing to the extant literature in novel ways as it allows us to focus in on contemporary levels of gender inequalities which would have been impacted on by recent patterns of socialisation, i.e. of the last 20 years or so (Grasso and Giugni, 2021). Moreover, while previous studies have revealed important findings in relation to gender inequalities in political participation, we are interested in extending the analysis of gender inequalities across a wider variety of political participation indicators, as well as among indicators linked to broader political engagement. Importantly, we develop on previous work through the analysis of recent cross-national data on young people’s political participation and their broader political engagement across nine European countries.

As have others (e.g. Coffé and Boldenzahl, 2010), we also aim to develop on previous research by analysing not only inequalities in institutional forms of participation linked to the workings of the democratic government (Janoski, 1998). While these modes are important, they provide only a limited picture and it has become increasingly essential to analyse inequalities by gender in modes of action linked also to ‘citizen-initiated and policy-oriented’ or ‘activist’ types. Indeed, as Coffé and Boldenzahl (2010) note, we have now adopted broader approaches to the analysis of political participation in the literature (Dalton, 2006, 2008; Giugni and Grasso, 2017; Norris, 2002; Wattenberg, 2002). It is therefore important to look at inequalities according to different types of actions and related attitudes since different types of resources are required for different types of actions and people make sense of them differently (Coffé and Boldenzahl, 2010; Dalton, 2006; Pattie et al., 2003). As such, only looking at one type of political repertoire could potentially underestimate or overestimate the picture of gender inequalities, and thus not provide an accurate reflection of the actual gender gap situation. Indeed, women have been found to be active in more informal efforts and organizations (Bourque and Grossholtz, 1998; Coffé and Boldenzahl, 2010; Sarvasy and Siim, 1994; Siim, 2000; Stover and Cable, 2017) and as such, it remains important to analyse other modes of political action and related attitudes side by side to come to a deeper understanding of where gender inequalities might lie. In addition, analysing patterns across nine European countries allows us to see to what extent findings can be generalised across contexts, forms and related participatory attitudes. As Pfanzelt and Spies (2018) note in their study on Germany, ‘studying youth engagement is highly informative because participation at early age paves the way for future engagement’. We extend the focus by analysing data on young people from nine European countries examining a wide variety of indicators of political participation and also broader political engagement in order to move forward research in this area.

Previous research

Gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement

Just as there is much scholarship which addresses participatory inequalities between younger and older age groups mainly relating to rates of participation and shifts towards alternative repertoires (Dalton, 2008; Giugni and Grasso, 2020; Grasso and Bessant, 2018; Pickard, 2019; Sloam, 2014), there is an extensive literature which likewise, addresses participatory inequalities including according to gender. With respect to previous evidence, one of the key seminal studies, Schlozman et al. (1994) examined gender inequalities in participation and particularly their existence with respect to different types of civic activity in the United States. They noted how the gender gap was seen to emerge from a ‘distinctive processes of social learning and adult roles that centered women in the private domain of the home’ (Schlozman et al., 1994: 963). However, they noted that this ignored gender inequalities in political resources to facilitate participation, and that when also considering informal, unconventional, and more local forms of participation, that findings would be likely to differ, noting also calls for a broader notion of politics ‘to include all collective involvements that influence the life of the community, even those charitable and organizational activities’ (Schlozman et al., 1994: 964).

Schlozman et al. (1995: 268) addressed these questions by examining the idea that

women are more likely than men to anchor their participation in concern for the good of the community; to be active on behalf of issues involving children and families, human welfare, broadly shared interests such as consumer or environmental concerns, and international peace

... while noting that by looking only at formal repertoires that political scientists are not considering repertoires of participation that are also fundamental for the study of gendered political participation. Verba and Nie (1972: 181) found that ‘compared to men, women are slightly less likely to be affiliated with an organization’ and yet – more recently, women’s organizations have contributed to promoting dialogue around the world (Hughes et al., 2018). Verba et al. (1978b: 235) noted that while they ‘had expected to find a different sex-related participatory pattern for campaign and communal activity’, they found no differences. Schlozman et al. (1994) argued that other than in voting (see also Carreras, 2018; Rai, 2017), women are generally less active than men (for more recent studies, see Carreras, 2018; Espinal and Zhao, 2015; Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer, 2012; Liu, 2020; Nir and McClurg, 2015).

Burns et al. (1997) tackled the question of the impact of gender inequalities in the household on gender inequalities in political participation and in this context noted that

the size of the gender gap, however, does not vary systematically with the difficulty of the act, nor do active women specialize-as feminist theory would predict them to do-in voluntary organizational, nonelectoral, or informal community activity. Interestingly, the greatest gender disparity appears in connection with making financial contributions to electoral campaigns or other political causes. Compared with women, men not only are more likely to give money but also write larger checks when they contribute.

Studies have shown that women are more likely than men to engage in consumer politics (Acik, 2013) and to sign petitions or raise money for a social or political group, but they remain less likely to join a demonstration (Coffé and Bolzendahl, 2010). Despite well-developed literatures relating to youth inequalities and gender inequalities in political participation, there is a relatively undeveloped scholarship relating to young women and political participation (Taft, 2010). A few studies nevertheless tackle this topic. Hooghe and Stolle’s (2004) study of American 14-year-olds found that girls favoured participation more linked to social movements whereas boys preferred more radical and confrontational forms. Campbell and Wolbrecht’s (2006) study analysed the effect of female political role models upon young women’s likelihood of participation in the US. Furthermore, qualitative studies such as Gordon (2008)’s based on ethnographic research with two high school student movement organizations on the US West Coast, find that young women experience greater opposition from family to their participation, especially if there is a perceived risk.

While scholarship has noted the importance of online activism to young people (Ekstrom and Sveningsson, 2019), Bode (2017) notes how women are more likely to go online for social interaction while men are more likely to seek information, for example, by reading the news. Duggan (2013) notes however that women are more likely to use Facebook and Instagram. Moreover, previous works arguing that, in general, women and girls are socialised to be ‘nice’ (Babcock et al., 2003), polite (Smith-Hefner, 1988), and to try not to hurt the feelings of others (Fuchs and Thelen, 1988; Garner and Power, 1996) suggest they might avoid activities such as posting about politics (Bode, 2017) which have the potential to be divisive. While some worry about online ‘slacktivism’ (Morozov, 2011) evidence suggests it rather complements offline actions (Xenos et al., 2014).

As such, while there is some evidence that women may be more active than men in less confrontational unconventional activities such as petitioning and political consumerism, it is not simply a matter of women being more active in unconventional versus conventional activities, but rather there seems to be a distinction in terms women’s greater proclivity towards participation between different types of more or less confrontational unconventional or protest activities. Briggs’ (2008) study which analyses interviews with young women regarding their interest in politics and in political issues, further reminds us that the principle of adopting a wide definition of political participation which includes for example action in the community is equally as pertinent to the study of young people’s gendered political participation. As such, based on all this evidence, we expect that:

H1. Young women will be more active in consumer politics, petition signing, and community participation than young men.

H2. Young men will be more active than young women in more confrontational types of participation such as demonstrating, striking, or occupying and more conventional, traditional or institutional participation related to political organizations and parties such as attending meetings or contacting a politician, donating money, wearing a campaign badge, and also in online political participation.

Verba et al. (1997) noted how studies had shown higher rates of political knowledge and political efficacy among men. These gender differences have often been understood as ‘the manifestation in politics of a more general set of predispositions that differentiate women and men, in particular, men’s greater aggressiveness and taste for conflict’ (Verba et al., 1997: 1052). Verba et al. (1997)

explain the difference between men and women in political interest, information, and efficacy in terms of the extent to which it can be accounted for by differences in other social characteristics associated with gender, interpreted as particular manifestations of more general differences between women and men or explained by the fact that the political world has traditionally been dominated by men.

Moreover, Pfanzelt and Spies (2018) found evidence in Germany for a lower confidence of women in their personal and political skills (see also Fraile and Gomez, 2017). Some scholars in turn have noted how inequalities in political interest might be due to gendered inequalities in confidence influencing responses to surveys rather than reflecting true differentials in interest and related measures themselves (Galligan, 2014). Based on all these strands in the literature, we therefore expect that:

H3. Young men will be more broadly politically engaged such as in terms of media use for political information, feelings of political efficacy, and more positive attitudes to democracy and the democratic process.

Explaining gender inequalities in political participation

Verba et al. (1997) noted how some studies have historically attributed gendered political inequalities to the role of resources (e.g. Baxter and Lansing, 1983), whereas others linked these differentials to gendered roles within society (e.g. Flora and Lynn, 1974). Schlozman et al. (1994) argued that participatory inequalities between men and women can be explained in part by gender inequalities in resources including financial and civic skills (see also Shorrocks and Grasso, 2020). The idea that women would be more likely to eschew confrontation (Gladue, 1991) further relates to the ‘inhibition thesis’, i.e. the idea that women may not act politically due to their socialisation into gender roles (Hooghe and Stolle, 2004; Verba et al., 1978a). As noted, two key aspects are stressed in the literature and seen as potentially leading to gender differences in participation: socialisation – the fact that young girls and boys might be raised in different ways which affect their political engagement – and resources – the differences in those attributes which can be seen to support participation. While a number of factors can be understood to link to the gender gap in political participation (Burns et al., 2001: 358–359), resources such as income, education, time, and civic skills are widely understood as important (see also Shorrocks and Grasso, 2020). Historically, the fact that women have tended to look after children has meant they have had less time or resources to engage politically in more formal terms particularly (Okin, 1989; Phillips, 1991; Taylor, 2016). Moreover, also opportunities through institutions can be unequal where culture is dominated by men particularly at elite level (Lowndes, 2000; Norris, 1997). In addition, experiences and events such as having children or having one’s own family could be seen as socialising women out of engagement when other pressures on time become preponderant (Andersen, 1975; Burns, 2002: 480; Jennings and Niemi, 1981). The fundamental issue here is that being less participatory generally translates into lower representation and therefore into greater political inequalities where the interests of women are reflected even less in the sphere of political decision-making thus causing a pernicious spiral of reduced visibility and political voice. This is even more of a concern if this is down to lower resources and a subjugated status to start with, therefore suggesting that women are more likely to not have the means to participate and to make their voices heard. Social processes such as those linked to gender inequalities thus are an important concern for the health of democracy in contemporary societies. Indeed, as noted by Burns et al. (1997: 373) ‘the family is society at its most private; the state is society at its most public’ and the two are connected in many ways. In summary, we expect that inequalities in participation by gender should be linked to resources, such as, importantly, education. Having small children to take care of is further an important element to consider with respect to political activity and time left available for this, while on the other hand, conceivably becoming a mother might also stimulate women to engage politically, particularly once children grow older. Gender ideology is also likely to be a relevant factor as are more leftist progressive economic values. Feelings of political efficacy are also likely to be linked to different types of political participation with sourcing of political information, associational membership, and support for democracy and the democratic process. As such, our final hypothesis is that:

H4. The differences in political engagement between young men and women will be explained through differences in resources (education and time, the presence of young children in the home), gender ideology, more leftist economic values, political efficacy, consumption of political information/news, associational membership, and support for democracy and the democratic process.

Data and methods

The data employed for the analysis in this article was collected in the context of the Horizon 2020 collaborative project “Reinventing Democracy in Europe: Youth Doing Politics in Times of Increasing Inequalities” (EURYKA) funded by the European Commission (grant agreement no. 727025) in 2018 across nine European countries on young people aged 18–34. (The Swiss part of the project was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 16.0103.) Context is kept relatively constant as we focus on nine European democracies with similar cultural and religious traditions, similar advances in women’s rights and similar democratic arrangements. The large samples of data collected using quotas (age, gender, region and education level) reflecting national population statistics for youth allow us to conduct detailed intra-group analyses exploring inequalities in participation. Another innovation of the study is that we include a large array of political activities and wider political engagement indicators in our analyses. Thanks to our innovative dataset, we are able to analyse differences amongst young men and women cross-nationally for a larger range of political actions than previously employed. Findings in previous literature suggest that it is important to study differences in political engagement not just between older and younger people but also between young women and men. To date, however, we have lacked the data to examine in detail inequalities within groups of young people across different types and modes of political participation cross-nationally and as such this is an important contribution to the literature of the current investigation.

In terms of the measurement of the various variables, to examine intra-generational inequalities, we examine differences by gender between young men and young women. The political activities we look at specifically are listed in Tables 1 to 3. For wider political engagement, we look at political news or information (see Table 4), internal and external political efficacy (see Table 5), democratic attitudes (see Table 6), and attitudes to democratic decision-making (see Table 7).

Table 1.

Youth (18–34 years) political participation (% engaged in last 12 months) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Attended demonstration, march or rally
Female	8.5	8.0	11.1	11.3	7.3	33.5	8.8	5.4	7.1
Male	9.4	9.1	16.0	10.8	8.2	20.8	8.3	6.4	8.2
Total	8.9	8.5	13.2	11.1	7.7	26.7	8.6	5.8	7.5
Ratio female to male	0.9	0.9	0.7	1.0	0.9	1.6	1.1	0.8	0.7
Sig.			*			***
Signed a petition, public letter or campaign appeal (online or offline)
Female	40.9	33.3	20.0	32.1	22.8	37.1	39.5	30.7	45.1
Male	25.7	27.0	14.8	25.1	18.4	27.9	24.7	27.7	28.5
Total	35.2	30.3	17.7	28.5	20.6	32.1	33.0	29.4	39.1
Ratio female to male	1.6	1.2	1.4	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.6	1.1	1.6
Sig.	***	**	*	***	*	***	***		***
Boycotted certain products for political or ethical reasons (online or offline)
Female	26.8	28.4	18.3	11.9	8.5	16.0	36.3	26.9	19.8
Male	24.7	27.3	17.8	9.9	11.0	15.3	26.4	26.5	16.0
Total	26.1	27.9	18.1	10.9	9.8	15.6	32.0	26.7	18.5
Ratio female to male	1.1	1.0	1.0	1.2	0.8	1.0	1.4	1.0	1.2
Sig.					+		***		*
Deliberately bought products for political or ethical reasons (online or offline)
Female	25.8	32.0	18.6	17.8	9.7	22.8	32.9	31.4	18.5
Male	20.2	26.4	13.4	12.3	10.4	19.5	24.9	27.2	14.3
Total	23.7	29.4	16.4	15.0	10.0	21.0	29.4	29.6	17.0
Ratio female to male	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.5	0.9	1.2	1.3	1.2	1.3
Sig.		**	**	**		+	***	+	**
Attended a meeting of a political organization or party
Female	4.0	4.7	5.9	8.0	2.6	6.0	4.0	4.2	4.0
Male	7.7	10.2	6.2	9.0	4.7	8.3	8.0	7.7	5.8
Total	5.4	7.3	6.0	8.5	3.7	7.2	5.7	5.7	4.6
Ratio female to male	0.5	0.5	1.0	0.9	0.6	0.7	0.5	0.5	0.7
Sig.	*	***			*	*	***	***	+
Contacted or visited a politician or government official (online or offline)
Female	3.9	5.2	3.5	9.9	3.0	5.5	6.9	3.4	9.4
Male	4.9	10.4	6.8	12.1	7.6	8.2	10.8	9.3	10.7
Total	4.3	7.7	4.9	11.0	5.4	7.0	8.6	5.9	9.9
Ratio female to male	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.8	0.4	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.9
Sig.		***	*		***	*	**	***	***
Donated money to a political organization or party (online or offline)
Female	15.7	5.6	5.6	6.7	3.7	7.8	10.5	8.8	8.8
Male	12.2	8.1	6.5	5.4	4.2	5.5	10.8	10.1	10.0
Total	14.4	6.8	6.0	6.0	4.0	6.5	10.6	9.3	9.2
Ratio female to male	1.3	0.7	0.9	1.2	0.9	1.4	1.0	0.9	0.9
Sig.		*				*
Displayed or worn a political or campaign logo or badge (online or offline)
Female	3.5	8.5	3.6	5.8	4.1	11.5	10.8	6.0	10.5
Male	5.1	8.1	3.9	6.3	4.0	9.2	12.1	6.2	8.5
Total	4.1	8.1	3.7	6.1	4.1	10.3	11.3	6.1	9.8
Ratio female to male	0.7	1.0	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.3	0.9	1.0	1.2
Sig.	+					+
Joined a strike
Female	7.2	3.8	6.8	6.2	3.9	29.4	1.9	1.2	4.1
Male	7.5	4.1	6.9	7.2	3.7	17.8	4.5	1.5	5.6
Total	7.3	3.9	6.9	6.7	3.8	23.1	3.1	1.3	4.7
Ratio female to male	1.0	0.9	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.7	0.4	0.8	0.7
Sig.						***	***
Joined a sit-in, occupation, or blockade
Female	5.1	1.6	4.8	3.3	1.5	8.1	1.2	1.5	4.5
Male	4.8	3.2	7.0	2.8	2.0	5.6	3.8	2.6	4.6
Total	5.0	2.4	5.7	3.0	1.8	6.7	2.3	2.0	4.5
Ratio female to male	1.1	0.5	0.7	1.2	0.8	1.5	0.3	0.6	1.0
Sig.		*				*	***	+

Notes: +p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 2.

Youth (18–34 years) community participation (% engaged in last 12 months) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Raised money for a charitable cause
Female	9.2	10.9	24.3	15.8	17.2	14.5	16.7	14.0	32.1
Male	11.6	11.5	26.4	10.5	14.7	13.4	17.5	13.6	28.9
Total	10.1	11.1	25.2	13.1	15.9	13.9	17.0	13.8	30.9
Ratio female to male	0.8	1.0	0.9	1.5	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.0	1.1
Sig.				***
Participated in a community service or volunteer activity
Female	16.8	17.7	22.8	20.3	16.0	20.5	10.7	21.2	21.5
Male	15.0	18.6	18.9	13.6	12.6	15.1	9.5	18.9	17.6
Total	16.1	18.1	21.1	16.9	14.3	17.6	10.1	20.2	20.1
Ratio female to male	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.5	1.3	1.4	1.1	1.1	1.2
Sig.			+	***	*	**			*
Worked or cooperated with others to try to solve a problem affecting your city or neighbourhood
Female	6.0	7.7	14.2	11.2	9.4	14.1	7.3	7.6	9.1
Male	11.6	10.2	16.6	10.2	10.5	14.5	9.0	9.0	12.4
Total	8.1	8.9	15.3	10.7	10.0	14.3	8.0	8.2	10.3
Ratio female to male	0.5	0.8	0.9	1.1	0.9	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.7
Sig.	*	+							*

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 3.

Youth (18–34 years) online political participation (% at least once a month) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Discussing or sharing opinion on politics on a social network site, for example, Facebook or Twitter
Female	21.6	26.0	20.3	33.7	21.7	32.7	19.5	17.8	31.4
Male	35.3	39.5	33.5	42.8	34.1	42.3	32.8	27.8	45.5
Total	26.7	32.3	26.0	38.3	28.0	37.9	25.3	22.1	36.5
Ratio female to male	0.6	0.7	0.6	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.6	0.6	0.7
Sig.	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***
Joining or starting a political group on Facebook/followed a politician or political group on Twitter
Female	12.8	15.4	13.6	23.8	15.3	21.0	10.4	9.0	19.2
Male	23.5	28.5	20.0	29.5	26.0	26.7	22.6	17.4	33.6
Total	16.8	21.5	16.3	23.8	20.7	24.1	15.8	12.6	24.4
Ratio female to male	0.5	0.5	0.7	0.8	0.6	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.6
Sig.	***	***	**	**	***	**	***	***	***
Visiting the web site of a political party or a politician
Female	12.3	20.4	10.9	25.6	18.0	22.6	17.0	11.4	19.8
Male	25.8	34.7	20.3	34.3	26.2	28.4	33.4	23.2	36.9
Total	17.4	27.1	15.0	30.0	22.2	25.7	24.2	16.4	25.9
Ratio female to male	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.5
Sig.	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***
Searching for information about politics online
Female	31.7	53.3	39.0	57.0	43.3	40.1	36.4	30.1	42.7
Male	46.9	67.1	57.0	66.7	60.7	48.2	56.0	54.6	60.5
Total	37.4	59.8	46.7	61.9	52.2	44.4	45.0	40.6	49.1
Ratio female to male	0.7	0.8	0.7	0.9	0.7	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.7
Sig.	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 4.

Youth (18–34 years) media use for political news or information (% every day) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Read the politics section of the newspaper
Female	2.9	4.8	2.1	8.2	3.0	11.3	4.0	3.5	6.4
Male	11.7	13.6	6.9	13.2	7.1	17.3	11.4	11.9	14.1
Total	6.2	8.9	4.2	10.8	5.1	14.5	7.2	7.1	9.2
Ratio female to male	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.7	0.4	0.3	0.5
Sig.	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***
Watch political news on TV
Female	10.3	12.6	7.4	28.8	15.0	32.7	5.4	5.9	9.1
Male	16.7	17.7	11.2	30.4	17.0	30.4	8.8	9.5	12.3
Total	12.7	15.0	9.0	29.6	16.0	31.5	6.9	7.5	10.2
Ratio female to male	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.9	0.9	1.1	0.6	0.6	0.7
Sig.	***	**	*				**	**	*
Listen to political news on the radio
Female	4.8	5.9	1.8	8.9	11.0	7.7	3.0	3.3	4.7
Male	8.3	6.7	6.2	9.4	11.7	12.3	5.8	5.0	7.9
Total	6.1	6.3	3.7	9.2	11.3	10.2	4.2	4.1	5.8
Ratio female to male	0.6	0.9	0.3	1.0	0.9	0.6	0.5	0.7	0.6
Sig.	**		***			**	**	+	**
Look for political information on the Internet
Female	6.4	8.5	8.3	13.6	8.2	9.9	4.1	3.1	7.4
Male	9.8	20.4	14.9	19.6	16.9	18.5	11.3	10.4	13.9
Total	7.6	14.0	11.1	16.6	12.6	14.5	7.2	6.2	9.8
Ratio female to male	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.7	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.3	0.5
Sig.		***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***
Look for political information on social media
Female	7.0	6.3	6.8	11.3	5.3	9.9	3.9	3.2	10.1
Male	7.7	12.1	10.6	14.6	10.8	15.8	10.1	6.9	11.6
Total	7.2	9.0	8.4	13.0	8.1	13.1	6.6	4.8	10.6
Ratio female to male	0.9	0.5	0.6	0.8	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.9
Sig.		***	**	*	***	***	***	***

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 5.

Youth (18–34 years) political efficacy (% agree/strongly agree) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Internal
I consider myself well-qualified to participate in politics
Female	29.7	37.9	26.0	26.6	25.4	29.9	28.1	28.9	33.4
Male	40.2	57.3	33.1	39.3	43.4	46.1	42.0	54.0	47.4
Total	33.6	47.0	29.1	33.1	34.5	38.6	34.2	39.7	38.4
Ratio female to male	0.7	0.7	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.7
Sig.	**	***	**	***	***	***	***	***	***
I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country
Female	35.9	47.7	45.3	34.8	43.7	42.6	42.4	38.6	51.3
Male	50.2	60.1	57.3	44.7	59.1	61.4	57.7	58.7	62.9
Total	41.3	53.5	50.5	39.8	51.5	52.8	49.1	47.2	55.5
Ratio female to male	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.8
Sig.	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***
External
Public officials do not care much what people like me think
Female	43.1	50.1	58.6	64.0	73.7	58.0	41.8	45.5	65.0
Male	51.2	50.4	53.7	57.0	71.4	60.2	49.5	42.8	62.9
Total	46.1	50.2	56.5	60.4	72.5	59.2	45.2	44.3	64.2
Ratio female to male	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.0	1.0	0.8	1.1	1.0
Sig.	*		+	***			***
People like me do not have any say about what the government does
Female	58.9	43.9	27.0	63.5	61.4	64.7	37.8	38.4	57.0
Male	59.8	45.6	23.7	57.3	58.8	65.2	45.0	34.2	57.2
Total	59.2	44.7	25.6	60.3	60.1	65.0	40.9	36.6	57.1
Ratio female to male	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.0	1.0	0.8	1.1	1.0
Sig.				**			***	*

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 6.

Youth (18–34 years) democratic attitudes (% agree/strongly agree) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
In democracy, the economic system runs badly
Female	30.8	7.6	27.3	36.2	19.8	15.3	9.7	8.5	26.6
Male	36.6	11.1	26.3	38.7	24.3	20.8	16.9	9.7	28.4
Total	32.9	9.2	26.9	37.4	22.1	18.3	12.9	9.0	27.2
Ratio female to male	0.8	0.7	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.9	0.9
Sig.	*	**			*	**	***
Democracies are indecisive and have too much quibbling
Female	30.8	43.8	30.8	28.3	30.6	28.8	16.9	30.4	34.7
Male	35.1	48.6	34.6	33.6	39.0	34.4	29.5	35.9	38.6
Total	32.4	46.1	32.4	31.0	34.9	31.8	22.4	32.8	36.1
Ratio female to male	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.9	0.9
Sig.		*		**	***	**	***	**	+
Democracies are not good at maintaining order
Female	14.8	9.2	14.7	23.5	29.8	12.2	11.0	9.2	21.6
Male	24.4	13.8	17.2	29.3	31.0	19.1	19.9	12.4	27.7
Total	18.4	11.3	15.8	26.4	30.4	15.9	14.9	10.6	23.8
Ratio female to male	0.6	0.7	0.9	0.8	1.0	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.8
Sig.	***	**		**		***	***	*	***
Democracy may have problems but it is better than any other form of government
Female	56.0	71.7	66.7	55.8	51.1	56.4	67.3	61.4	53.1
Male	60.3	63.3	60.3	51.5	49.6	59.5	63.8	62.6	58.0
Total	57.6	67.8	64.0	53.6	50.3	58.0	65.8	61.9	54.9
Ratio female to male	0.9	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.0	0.9
Sig.		***	*	*			+		*

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Table 7.

Youth (18–34 years) attitudes to democratic decision-making (% agree/strongly agree) by gender and country.

	Fra	Ger	Gre	Ita	Pol	Spa	Swe	Swi	UK
Politicians are necessary
Female	31.4	63.3	32.3	45.3	35.2	43.8	63.5	54.3	52.7
Male	35.7	57.6	40.0	47.2	39.2	47.6	60.4	54.2	56.8
Total	33.0	60.6	35.6	46.2	37.2	45.8	62.1	54.2	54.2
Ratio female to male	0.9	1.1	0.8	1.0	0.9	0.9	1.1	1.0	0.9
Sig.		**	**		+				+
Delegating political decisions is necessary
Female	39.8	54.1	47.3	31.8	15.2	49.8	53.8	48.0	53.3
Male	42.0	49.3	53.8	35.0	17.6	53.9	55.4	50.0	54.3
Total	40.7	51.9	50.1	33.4	16.4	52.0	54.5	48.9	53.7
Ratio female to male	1.0	1.1	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.0	1.0
Sig.		*	*			+
Delegating political decisions is efficient
Female	24.0	31.4	18.2	27.3	20.4	35.2	38.1	28.1	34.8
Male	28.5	31.4	20.9	31.1	26.8	40.2	38.6	32.3	38.7
Total	25.7	31.4	19.4	29.2	23.7	37.9	38.3	29.9	36.2
Ratio female to male	0.8	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.9	1.0	0.9	0.9
Sig.				+	***	*		*	+
It is too hard to decide directly on all relevant political issues
Female	52.9	58.2	49.1	41.9	48.3	43.0	46.9	53.3	48.7
Male	52.5	56.4	48.4	44.9	52.9	43.6	49.0	56.9	49.3
Total	52.8	57.4	48.8	43.4	50.6	43.3	47.8	54.9	48.9
Ratio female to male	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.0	0.9	1.0
Sig.					*			+

p ⩽ 0.1; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

First, in the analysis that follows, we look at cross-tabulating gender and looking at significant differences between young men and women across the nine countries included in our study for each of the selected indicators to test H1-3. Second, we create and run multilevel logistic models for three combined measures of whether someone did at least one type of action in the last 12 months/once a month amongst each of the three domains of political participation, community participation and online participation with gender only in the models 1 and then including the other relevant independent variables to test H4 in the models 2. The multilevel models take into account country differences.

Results

In this section, we turn to examining the evidence in favour or against our hypotheses by looking at the data in our Tables. We first examine Tables 1 to 3 on political participation to analyse H1 and H2. In line with stereotyping which likens women’s behaviour and participation to the ‘idealized vision of a mother’ (Valdini, 2019: 43), ‘maternalist’ thinking has argued that ‘motherly wisdom’ makes women more likely to be addressing certain types of political affairs, for example, those linked to community or child-rearing (Moore, 2018). Moreover, feminists have been important elements of various other movements that have used consumer politics and other protest tactics (Grosse, 2019) and Fisher (2019) reported a majority of organizers and participants of the 2019 climate strike in the United States identified as female. As such, there are reasons to believe that there are specific forms of action – mainly consumer politics, petitioning and community action – that are more likely to attract young women relative to young men (H1), while young men are more likely to be politically active than young women in the rest (H2). The evidence presented in Tables 1 to 3 shows that indeed in a majority of the countries studied young women are more active that young men in petitioning, and also in some types of consumer politics (buycotting), but there is no such supporting evidence for boycotting itself. We can also see support for H1 with respect to community participation in the form of service or volunteer activity, while there is no such evidence for raising money for charity or coming together to solve problems in a majority of the nine countries. As such, there is at least some evidence to support H1 showing young women more likely to participate than men in some of these activities (petitioning, buycotting and participating in community service or voluntary activity) whereas in the others there are no gender differences in a majority of the countries under scrutiny.

With respect to H2, we also find mixed evidence. There are indeed significant differences in political participation between young women and men in a majority of the nine countries analysed here for more institutional forms of participation linked to organizations and parties such as attending their meetings or contacting a politician, and also large ones with respect to all four modes of online participation. However, there is no such evidence for donating money, wearing a badge or the more confrontational forms of protest such as demonstrating, striking, and occupying where significant gender differences were not found in most countries under study. As such, supporting H1, young women were more active than young men in three relatively popular, less confrontational unconventional activities (petitioning, buycotting and community volunteering) and, supporting H2, young men were more active than young women in six more conventional and information gathering types of activities (attending meetings of a political organization, contacting politicians, and the four online participation activities). The remaining eight activities showed no significant gender differences in a majority of the countries analysed indicating that gender differences in participation do not appear as marked among the young generation today as they may have been amongst the general population in the past. We also find at least some support for gendered repertoires of specific types of activities as claimed in the literature and as reflected in the evidence we found supporting H1 and H2 in part.

Next, we turn to examining the evidence for H3 in Tables 4 to 7. We can see that there is initially support with respect to four indicators out of five of media use for political news or information (excluding TV) showing young men report being more politically engaged than young women across a majority of the countries studied. The evidence in Table 5 also shows support for H3 with respect to internal political efficacy and young women less likely to say they see themselves as qualified to participate in politics and to have a good understanding of political issues facing the country than young men. This was not the case for external political efficacy where there were no significant gender differences in most countries. Against H3, however, we can see in Tables 6 and 7 that young men are more likely in most countries to be more critical of democracy than young women (that the economic system runs badly, that democracies are indecisive and have too much quibbling, that they are not good at maintaining order) but they are also more likely than young women in a majority of countries to think that delegating political decisions – and presumably – having representatives is efficient, reflecting perhaps their lower proclivity for more populist stances.

Finally, we turn to the evidence for H4 in the models presented in Table 8, finding mixed evidence. What we find, first, in the models 1 including only gender, is that overall young women are more active than men in political activism and community participation, but they are less active than men in online political participation. Accounting for the various relevant theoretical factors, as shown in the models 2, would further increase the activism gap between women and men for political and community participation and narrow it down that for online participation. Overall, in the models 2 controlling for all the relevant independent variables simultaneously, we find that while education tends to support participation, this is not always the case; having children below 3 years in the household does not appear in and of itself to diminish participation; more traditionalist gender ideology (women need children in order to be fulfilled) appears to have a detrimental effect on political activism but not on online political participation; more leftist economic values appear to generally have a positive effect on participation (higher values for left-right economic values indicate more rightist positions); internal political efficacy as expected has a positive effect whereas external has a negative effect in some cases (value items in the scale are in negative form); the consumption of political news and associational membership all have a positive effect whereas that of democratic attitudes is more mixed. We reflect on some of the implications of these and the other results in the next section.

Table 8.

Multilevel logistic regression models.

	Political participation18–24		Political participation25–34		Community participation18–24		Community participation25–34		Online participation18–24		Online participation25–34
	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (1)	Model (2)
Gender (male)	−0.18***	−0.24***	−0.16***	−0.33***	−0.10*	−0.22***	−0.11*	−0.31***	0.59***	0.41***	0.75***	0.48***
	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.05)	(0.04)	(0.05)
Education (ref: Primary)
Secondary		0.24***		0.16**		0.10		0.24***		0.04		0.20**
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.07)		(0.06)		(0.06)
Tertiary		0.20**		0.19**		0.15		0.31***		0.24**		0.35***
		(0.07)		(0.06)		(0.08)		(0.07)		(0.08)		(0.07)
Children below 3 years		0.05		−0.04		−0.03		0.00		0.47***		0.06
		(0.12)		(0.06)		(0.12)		(0.07)		(0.13)		(0.07)
Women need children to feel fulfilled		−0.18***		−0.15***		−0.03		−0.05*		0.08***		0.09***
		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)
Left-right economic values		−0.34***		−0.36***		−0.08*		0.00		−0.24***		−0.18***
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.04)		(0.03)		(0.04)		(0.03)
Internal political efficacy		0.70***		0.64***		0.37***		0.38***		1.38***		1.50***
		(0.06)		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.06)
External political efficacy		0.15**		0.12*		−0.01		−0.10		−0.17**		−0.25***
		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.06)
Political news information		1.52***		1.30***		1.38***		1.45***		4.08***		3.70***
		(0.14)		(0.11)		(0.13)		(0.11)		(0.22)		(0.18)
Associational membership		0.85***		0.90***		0.92***		1.06***		0.43***		0.44***
		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.05)
Democratic support		−0.19*		0.06		−0.02		−0.12		0.42***		0.62***
		(0.09)		(0.08)		(0.09)		(0.09)		(0.09)		(0.09)
Democratic decision-making		0.29***		0.32***		0.19**		0.11		0.39***		0.22***
		(0.06)		(0.06)		(0.07)		(0.07)		(0.07)		(0.07)
Age		−0.05***		−0.01		−0.06***		−0.01		−0.05***		−0.04***
		(0.01)		(0.01)		(0.01)		(0.01)		(0.01)		(0.01)
Constant	0.08	1.56***	−0.11	0.60*	−0.71***	0.17	−0.96***	−1.35***	0.06	0.63*	−0.11	0.30
	(0.10)	(0.29)	(0.09)	(0.26)	(0.08)	(0.31)	(0.10)	(0.30)	(0.09)	(0.31)	(0.11)	(0.29)
N	9,920	9,920	10,557	10,557	9,920	9,920	10,557	10,557	9,920	9,920	10,557	10,557
Log lik.	−6776.31	−6156.55	−7204.80	−6571.64	−6177.26	−5772.41	−6083.82	−5596.75	−6571.57	−5646.86	−6954.14	−5795.05
Sigma u	0.29	0.27	0.24	0.20	0.23	0.30	0.27	0.33	0.27	0.30	0.33	0.36
Rho	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.04

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; *p ⩽ 0.05; **p ⩽ 0.01; ***p ⩽ 0.001.

Conclusion

In his seminal study, on ‘Gender Roles and Inequalities in Political Participation’ Jennings (1983) looked at differences in eight countries, at the salience of politics in the home and at parent–child conversations about a series of topics. A clear sign of the gendered nature of politics was that he found that despite the fact that children were more likely to speak to their mothers in general, fathers tended to be spoken to most about politics; this was seen as ‘an extension and manifestation of the generally greater political role-played by men even at the mass public level’ (Jennings, 1983: 375). In this article, our focus on young people allowed us to look at the current state of gender inequalities in political participation and broader political engagement to provide a detailed picture for understanding contemporary patterns and as such what we might expect in democracies in the future given the more recent processes of socialisation. Overall, we found that gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement among young men and women were not as marked as might have been expected based on previous evidence.

Over the decades since the 1960s to 1970s, the political landscape is understood to have changed a great deal with the demise of mass parties and trade unions and other large collective organizations (Giugni and Grasso, 2019a; Grasso, 2016), opening the way to the rise of new social movements and issue-based politics focusing on new values as opposed to the more traditional left-right conflict focused on economic, redistributive, and traditional emancipatory politics (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2002; Giugni and Grasso, 2019b). Moreover, values along the social axis ranging from libertarianism to authoritarianism or from freedom of choice to traditionalism are understood to have become more prominent for political activism with respect to the traditional unidimensional distinction between economic values of left and right (Grasso and Giugni, 2018; Grasso et al., 2017).

As Furlong and Cartmel (1996) noted, political engagement can be understood in different ways and there are different aspects that can be studied. Some young people may be politically interested but not engage in political actions; others may not vote but engage in demonstrations; still others may engage but remain sceptical about their abilities to achieve change or not express support for emancipatory politics and social change. These are all important factors that deserve further scrutiny in order to better understand inequalities in political action between young men and women. In particular, gender has been traditionally understood to remain an important stratifying force with respect to understanding who engages. Important inequalities in both conventional and unconventional participation have been found in previous studies with respect to younger generations (Grasso, 2013; Grasso et al., 2019). It seems critical, with respect to young people and claims of political apathy and detachment from the political sphere, to investigate the role of inequalities for their political engagement and particularly so amongst young women as gender has traditionally been seen as being linked to lower resources and political exclusion. Research has shown that young people have low interest in party politics, that party politics is perceived as ‘boring’ and irrelevant. However, research has increasingly shown young people’s engagement in new social movements and unconventional forms – in many cases particularly amongst young women. Indeed, when we look at these newer modes of engagement young women can actually be seen to be very much politically involved and engaged today.

Moreover, while studies have shown that young people feel that professional politicians do not represent their interests in Britain (Henn and Foard, 2014), young people will still ‘do it themselves’ (Pickard, 2019) to engaged politically in their most preferred ways (Karampampas et al., 2019). Earlier qualitative research had already shown young people’s detachment from more institutional politics (Diplock et al., 2002; Henn et al., 2002; O’Toole, 2003; White et al., 2000) but here we have also shown that this is more so the case for young women as they are significantly less engaged than young men in conventional activities. However, young men are also more likely to have embraced online political participation whereas young women are more engaged in less confrontational forms of unconventional activism (petitioning, buycotting) and community volunteering. As such, this research further emphasizes that when studying young women’s political participation, it is critical to look at modes of engagement beyond the conventional institutional sphere, including various forms of unconventional activism and community participation (Grasso et al., 2017). Future research might want to further develop on this work to understand if and how life-course events might lead to depriving women of opportunities for political engagement and for their broader presence in the public sphere. In addition, more quantitative work engaging more directly with the bourgeoning intersectional and critical approaches (Chun et al., 2013; Laperrière and Lépinard, 2016) could also be fruitful avenues for developing this research line in the future.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the European Commission under H2020 (grant agreement no. 727025). The Swiss part of the project was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) under contract number 16.0103. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Swiss Government.

ORCID iD

Maria Grasso

Author biographies

Maria Grasso is Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. She is European Editor of Mobilization and author of Generations, Political Participation and Social Change in Western Europe (Routledge 2016), Street Citizens: Protest Politics and Social Movement Activism in the Age of Globalization (Cambridge University Press 2019, with Marco Giugni), and Living with Hard Times: Europeans in the Great Recession (ECPR Press 2021, with Marco Giugni). Her papers have appeared in British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, International Political Science Review, European Political Science Review, Electoral Studies, and other journals.

Katherine Smith is a Research Fellow in youth politics at Nottingham Trent University. Previously, she was a Doctoral Researcher at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom. In 2017, she was awarded a studentship for her doctoral studies from the EU Horizon 2020-funded collaborative European project EURYKA. Her research interests lie in political participation, young people’s politics, and gender inequalities.

References

Acik

(2013) Reducing the participation gap in civic engagement: Political consumerism in Europe. European Sociological Review 29(6): 1309–1322.

Andersen

(1975) Working women and political participation, 1952-1972. American Journal of Political Science 19(3): 439–454.

Babcock

Laschever

Gelfand

Small

(2003) Nice girls don’t ask: Women negotiate less than men- and everyone pays the price. Harvard Business Review 18(10): 14–16.

Baxter

Lansing

(1983) Women and Politics the Visible Majority. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Bessant

Grasso

(2019) Security and the liberal-democratic state: Criminalizing young people’s politics. Revista Internacional de Sociología 77(4): 140.

Bode

(2017) Closing the gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication and Society 20(4): 587–603.

Bourque

Grossholtz

(1998) Politics an unnatural practice: Political science looks at female participation. In: Phillips

(ed.) Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.23–43.

Briggs

(2008) Young women and politics: An oxymoron? Journal of Youth Studies 11(6): 579–592.

Burns

(2002) Gender: Public opinion and political action. In: Katznelson

Milner

(eds) The State of the Discipline III. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, pp.462–487.

10.

Burns

Schlozman

Verba

(1997) The public consequences of private inequality: Family life and citizen participation. The American Political Science Review 91(2): 373–389.

11.

Burns

Schlozman

Verba

(2001) The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Campbell

Wolbrecht

(2006) See Jane run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. Journal of Politics 68(2): 233–247.

13.

Carreras

(2018) Why no gender gap in electoral participation? A civic duty explanation. Electoral Studies 52(1): 36–45.

14.

Chun

Lipsitz

Shin

(2013) Intersectionality as a social movement strategy: Asian women advocates. Signs 38(4): 917–940.

15.

Coffé

Bolzendahl

(2010) Same game, different rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles 62(5): 318–333.

16.

Dalton

(2006) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

17.

Dalton

(2008) Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies 56(1): 76–98.

18.

Dalton

Wattenberg

(2002) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

Diplock

Gosschalk

Marshall

Kaur-Ballagan

(2002) Non-voters, political disconnection and parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary Affairs 55(4): 715–730.

20.

Duggan

(2013) It’s a women’s (social media) world. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/12/its-a-womans-social-media-world/ (accessed 27 May 2020).

21.

Ekstrom

Sveningsson

(2019) Young people’s experiences of political membership: From political parties to Facebook groups. Information, Communication & Society 22(2): 155–171.

22.

Espinal

Zhao

(2015) Gender gaps in civic and political participation in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society 57(1): 123–138.

23.

Fisher

(2019) American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave. New York: Columbia University Press.

24.

Flora

Lynn

(1974) Women and political socialization: Considerations of the impact of motherhood. In: Jaquette

(ed.) Women in Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp.37–43.

25.

Fraile

Gomez

(2017) Bridging the enduring gender gap in political interest in Europe: The relevance of promoting gender equality. European Journal of Political Research 56(3): 601–618.

26.

Fuchs

Thelen

(1988) Children’s expected interpersonal consequences of communicating their affective state and reported likelihood of expression. Child Development 59(5): 1312–1322.

27.

Furlong

Cartmel

(1996) Young People and Social Change: Individualization and Risk in Late Modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

28.

Galligan

(2014) The comparative study of politics and gender. In: Campbell

Childs

(eds) Deeds and Words: Gendering Politics after Joni Lovenduski. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.35–49.

29.

Garner

Power

(1996) ‘Preschoolers’ emotional control in the disappointment paradigm and its relation to temperament, emotional knowledge, and family expressiveness. Child Development 67(4): 1406–1419.

30.

Giugni

Grasso

(2017) Blame and contention: How perceptions of the government’s role in the economic crisis shape patterns of political action. Acta Politica 54(3): 346–370.

31.

Giugni

Grasso

(2019a) Street Citizens: Protest Politics and Social Movement Activism in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

32.

Giugni

Grasso

(2019b) Party membership and social movement activism: A macro–micro analysis. Party Politics 27(1): 92–102.

33.

Giugni

Grasso

(2020) Talking about youth: The depoliticization of young people in the public domain. American Behavioral Scientist 64(5): 591–607.

34.

Giugni

Grasso

(eds) (2021) Youth and Politics in Times of Increasing Inequalities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Gladue

(1991) Aggressive behavioural characteristics, hormones, and sexual orientation in men and women. Aggressive Behavior 17(6): 301–362.

36.

Gordon

(2008) Gendered paths to teenage political participation: Parental power, civic mobility and youth activism. Gender and Society 22(1): 31–55.

37.

Grasso

Giugni

(2021) Intra-generational inequalities in young people’s political participation in Europe: The impact of social class on youth political engagement. Politics. DOI: 10.1177/02633957211031742.

38.

Grasso

(2013) The Differential Impact of Education on Young People’s Political Activism: Comparing Italy and the United Kingdom. Comparative Sociology 12: 1–30.

39.

Grasso

(2016) Generations, Political Participation and Social Change in Western Europe. London: Routledge.

40.

Grasso

Bessant

(eds) (2018) Governing Youth Politics in the Age of Surveillance. London: Routledge.

41.

Grasso

Giugni

(2018) Political values and extra-institutional political participation: The impact of economic redistributive and social libertarian preferences on protest behavior. International Political Science Review 40(4): 470–485.

42.

Grasso

Farrall

Gray

Hay

Jennings

(2017) Thatcher’s Children, Blair’s Babies, political socialisation and trickle-down value-change: An age, period and cohort analysis. British Journal of Political Science 49(1): 17–36.

43.

Grasso

Farrall

Gray

Hay

Jennings

(2018) Socialisation and generational political trajectories: An age, period and cohort analysis of political participation in Britain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 29(2): 199–221.

44.

Grasso

Yoxon

Karampampas

Temple

(2017) Relative deprivation and inequalities in social and political activism. Acta Politica 54(3): 398–429.

45.

Grosse

(2019) Ecofeminism and climate justice. In: Reger

(ed.) Nevertheless, They Persisted: Feminisms and Continued Resistance in the U.S. Women’s Movement. New York: Routledge, pp.185–203.

46.

Henn

Foard

(2014) Social differentiation in young people’s political participation: The impact of social and educational factors on youth political engagement in Britain. Journal of Youth Studies 17(3): 360–380.

47.

Henn

Weinstein

Wring

(2002) A generation apart? Youth and political participation in Britain. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4(2): 167–192.

48.

Hooghe

Stolle

(2004) Good girls go to the polling booth, Bad boys go everywhere: Gender differences in anticipated participation among American fourteen year olds. Women and Politics 26(3): 1–23.

49.

Hughes

Paxton

Quinsaat

Reith

(2018) Does the global north still dominate women’s international organizing? A network analysis from 1978 to 2008. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 23(1): 1–21.

50.

Janoski

(1998) Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Jennings

(1983) Gender roles and inequalities in political participation. Political Research Quarterly 36(3): 364–385.

52.

Jennings

Niemi

(1981) Generations and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

53.

Karampampas

Temple

Grasso

(2019) Violent political action during the European economic crisis: An empirical investigation of four theoretical paradigms from social movement research. Comparative European Politics 18(3): 420–436.

54.

Kittilson

Schwindt-Bayer

(2012) The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

55.

Laperrière

Lépinard

(2016) Intersectionality as a tool for social movements: Strategies of inclusion and representation in the Québécois women’s movement. Politics 36(4): 374–382.

56.

Liu

(2020) Gender gaps in political participation in Asia. International Political Science Review. EPub ahead of print 6 August. DOI: 10.1177/0192512120935517.

57.

Lowndes

(2000) Women and social capital. British Journal of Political Science 30(3): 533–537.

58.

Moore

(2018) Refiguring motherhood and maternalism in ecofeminism. In: Marsden

(ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Nature: Three Volume Set. London: SAGE Publishing, pp.780–794.

59.

Morozov

(2011) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York: Public Affairs.

60.

Nir

McClurg

(2015) How institutions affect gender gaps in public opinion expression. Public Opinion Quarterly 79(2): 544–567.

61.

Norris

(ed.) (1997) Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Norris

(2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

63.

Okin

(1989) Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.

64.

O’Toole

(2003) Engaging with young people’s conceptions of the political. Children’s Geographies 1(1): 71–90.

65.

Pattie

Seyd

Whiteley

(2003) Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes and behaviour in Britain. Political Studies 51(3): 443–468.

66.

Pfanzelt

Spies

(2019) The gender gap in political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Research Quarterly 72(1): 34–48.

67.

Phillips

(1991) Engendering Democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

68.

Pickard

(2019) Politics, Protest and Young People: Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

69.

Rai

(2017) Women’s participation in electoral politics in India. South Asia Research 37(1): 58–77.

70.

Sarvasy

Siim

(1994) Gender, transitions to democracy, and citizenship. Social Politics 1(3): 249–255.

71.

Schlozman

Burns

Verba

(1994) Gender and the pathways to participation: The role of resources. Journal of Politics 56(4): 963–990.

72.

Schlozman

Burns

Verba

Donahue

(1995) Gender and citizen participation: Is there a different voice? American Journal of Political Science 39(2): 267–293.

73.

Shorrocks

Grasso

(2020) The attitudinal gender gap across generations: Support for redistribution and government spending in contexts of high and low welfare provision. European Political Science Review 12(3): 289–306.

74.

Siim

(2000) Gender and Citizenship: Politics and Agency in France, Britain and Denmark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

75.

Sloam

(2014) New voice, less equal, the civic and political engagement of young people in the United States and Europe. Comparative Political Studies 47(5): 663–688.

76.

Smith-Hefner

(1988) Women and politeness: The Javanese example. Language and Society 17(4): 535–554.

77.

Stover

Cable

(2017) American women’s environmental activism. In: McCammon

Taylor

Reger

Einwohner

(eds) Oxford Handbook of US Women’s Social Movement Activism. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.685–707.

78.

Taft

(2010) Rebel Girls: Youth Activism and Social Change across the Americas. New York, NY: University Press.

79.

Taylor

(2016) The Rise of the American Conservation Movement: Power, Privilege, and Environmental Protection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

80.

Valdini

(2019) The Inclusion Calculation: Why Men Appropriate Women’s Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

81.

Verba

Nie

(1972) Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.

82.

Verba

Nie

Kim

(1978a) Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

83.

Verba

Nie

Kim

Shabad

(1978b) Men and women: Sex-related differences in political activity. In: Verba

Nie

Kim

(eds) Participation and Political Equity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.234–268

84.

Verba

Burns

Schlozman

(1997) Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics 59(4): 1051–1072.

85.

Wattenberg

(2002) Where Have All the Voters Gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

86.

White

Bruce

Ritchie

(2000) Young People’s Politics: Political Interest and Engagement amongst 14-24 Year Olds. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

87.

Xenos

Vromen

Loader

(2014) The great equalizer? Patterns of social media engagement in three advanced democracies. Information, Communication and Society 17(2): 151–167.

Gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement among young people in Europe: Are young women less politically engaged than young men?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Previous research

Gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement

Explaining gender inequalities in political participation

Data and methods

Results

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References