Italy and Germany experienced a decrease in religiosity during the twentieth century. How did Catholicism deal with these challenges? The Catholic family vision and the male breadwinner model had been the fundamental backbone of the Christian welfare states. Italian and German Christian Democratic parties implemented similar family policy regimes in the 1950s. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, these male-breadwinner–centered family policies resulted in low shares of working mothers, low fertility rates, and a low woman voting for the Christian Democrats. Only Germany responded to these challenges with reforms. Why did both countries follow so different developments? In Germany Protestants had changed their ideas on early childhood education from conservative to progressive from the 1970s onward. The Catholics had stayed put on a very conservative interpretation. With reunification a new electorate became available for the Christian Democrats. The East-German electorate was secular but from a Protestant cultural heritage. The Christian Democratic party was after reunification no longer constrained on relying on the Catholic core voters but could now compensate them with secularized Protestants electorate in Eastern Germany. This allowed them to reform early childhood education and parental leave. In Italy instead, the absence of Protestantism allowed the Catholic Church to block all family policy reform attempts.

Specifically analysing the experiences of Palestinian youth in a West Bank refugee camp, Chapter IV analyses the navigation of emotions inevitably precipitated by the grinding realities of colonisation and military occupation, in a setting in which normative conceptions of masculinity assert that ‘men don’t cry’. Using Palestinian rap music as a case study to explore young refugee men’s navigation and subversion of these dynamics, I argue that emotional expression in this particular musical culture both functions to reconfigure binary gendered norms in a context of invasive settler colonialism, while simultaneously masculinising emotionality through a dialogic performance of emotion, nationalism, resistance, and paternalism. I illustrate, therefore, that in some ways gendered binaries are challenged in and through the performance of Palestinian rap as a form of resistance and release, while in other ways, these are reconfigured so that men’s emotional expression can be subsumed within them.

Chapter II examines shifting notions of masculinised strength as they adapt in occupied Palestine, contesting notions of ‘masculinity in crisis’ so frequently applied to this context. Where it is nigh impossible to enact physical strength in the face of the military might of Israel, I explore the fluidity of emblems of masculine strength and prowess – arguing that hegemonic masculinities and patriarchies in Palestine are not fixed, but move in dynamic relation to the conditions of coloniality with which they intersect. Through the examination of sumud, mental strength and moral strength, this chapter therefore charts emergent narratives of strength and resistance in a setting in which bodily invasion by the occupying forces is an ever-present reality. As such, where the violence of militarised colonisation routinely undermines normative conceptions of ‘masculine excellence’, I examine masculinised ideals as negotiated, maintaining binary gendered categorisations that (re)establish the masculine as strength.

Chapter VI explores the means through which imperial impositions and military occupation deliberately narrate, interact with, and affect internal dynamics of patriarchy in colonised Palestine – relating this to both articulations and expressions of violence against women within this context. Moving beyond the “essentialising cultural logics” that render patriarchal violence as a ‘static’ and ‘fixed’ component of ‘Palestinian culture’, this chapter thus joins with the pursuit of many Palestinian feminists to examine the complex “interplay between a colonial politics of exclusion and a localised culture of control” as it is narrated and deployed in relation to violence against Palestinian women (Shalhoub-Kervorkian and Daher-Nashif 2013, 298). Yet, I caution against centralising Israel’s military occupation as causal or ‘explanatory’ of internal dynamics of violence, arguing that making this link uncritically risks positioning Palestinian women’s bodies as discursive and material sites upon which an internal patriarchal order ‘in crisis’ can be normatively reclaimed.

Chapter I explores traditionally ‘non-hegemonic’ attributes as inherent to militarised masculinities in contemporary Israel, examining embodied compliance and submission to a higher order as a normalised means of ascending the ‘hierarchy of bodies’ that bolsters and undergirds the Zionist project from its outset. Exploring basic training, punishments, military hierarchy, friendship, camaraderie and death, I argue that the conscious performance of embodied submission (with enthusiastic consent) is as much valued within conscripted military masculinities as militarised domination in this context. Indeed, I suggest that the conscripted combat soldier – the archetypal national and masculine hero – must be both visibly dominant over the indigenous Palestinian ‘Other’, while simultaneously malleable and submissive to the goals of the Israeli state. As such, I explore both polarities of domination and submission as demanded within the parameters of idealised military masculinity – illustrating the gendered tensions that punctuate normative binaries in this militarised setting.

The conclusion considers theoretical and practical changes needed to begin to extricate liberalism and liberal democracies from their patriarchal roots, strengthen the protection of women’s rights in liberal democracies, and bolster the ability of liberal democracies to fight against right-wing religio-populism. The changes suggested are in the tradition of the radical internal critique of liberalism offered by Susan Okin, whose radical liberal, or humanist, feminism aimed to provide theoretical underpinnings for a liberalism that will focus on both the private and the public spheres, recognize the gendered power differentials, oppression, and prejudices maintained and supported by patriarchal liberalism, and take active steps to change them. Most of the discussion will refer to the theoretical and practical changes needed to protect women’s rights in liberal democracies from the adverse effects of patriarchal religion, including its nationalist and populist iterations. The last part will discuss the connection between the suggested changes and the urgently needed overall struggle of liberal democracies against right-wing populism.

This chapter argues against the common but oversimplified claim that the secularization of the world and the legal separation between religion and the state in liberal states have eliminated the negative effects patriarchal religion can have on women’s rights. The chapter suggests that there are at least five facets of the relationship between religion and the state in contemporary liberal democracies that are crucial to a proper understanding of the ways in which religion–state relations affect women’s rights: (1) institutional differentiation between religion and the state; (2) strong protection of religious liberty; (3) the involvement of religion in politics; (4) the extent of religious involvement in education and social services; and (5) the levels of religious belief of individuals in society. It analyzes each of these facets and shows how their treatment in liberal states allows patriarchal religion to perpetuate and entrench women’s inequality.

This chapter examines the theoretical roots of discrimination against women in liberal states. It starts with a general discussion of feminism and liberalism and the tensions between their main variants, with an emphasis on the public–private distinction. It then introduces a detailed feminist critique of political liberalism, pointing to its flaws, and in particular to the distinction between the public and the private and between the political and nonpolitical on which Rawls’ theory is based. The chapter claims that these flaws have allowed patriarchal religions and other illiberal ideologies to strengthen their power in liberal societies and deepen the oppression of women. This chapter also introduces the role of capitalism in the oppression of Women in western liberal states, its connection to patriarchal religion, and its dependence on the public–private distinction and its corollary distinction between love and justice. The chapter closes with a discussion of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, compares it to the Race Convention, and claims that despite its shortcomings, it is a better model for protecting women’s rights than the liberal model.

Calls to restrict women’s rights are a most effective rallying cry for right-wing populists and religious conservatives in their surprisingly successful attack on the foundations of liberal democracy. Populist leaders across the world use the aggrandizement of patriarchy and the opposition to women’s rights as the engine of a right-wing populist revolution. The success of the populist attack on women’s rights in liberal societies, together with decisions such as the American Dobbs decision, has confirmed feminist warnings regarding the flawed protection of women’s rights in liberal societies, which have hitherto been rejected by most liberals as unfounded and alarmist. The book claims that to understand the success of the religio-populist attack on women’s rights in liberal democracies, and its centrality to the success of right-wing populism, it is necessary to acknowledge and understand the patriarchal nature of liberalism and liberal societies. The introduction defines patriarchy and explains its connections to liberalism, religion, and populism, and the contemporary threat it poses to both women’s rights and liberal democracy. It then sets out the outline of the book.

Utilizing the Foucauldian concept of power, this chapter shows how the power of religion and culture has created and perpetuated the hegemony of patriarchy throughout the centuries, including in liberal states. It claims that liberal theory lacks an adequate theory of power and neglects the dynamics of power and control in the private sphere. Liberalism disregards the institutions, practices, and norms of religion and culture, as a socially and politically significant site of power. This severely curtails the ability of liberal states to ensure that the exercise of power and authority over the individual is justified and that the rights of the individual are safeguarded. After a general theoretical and historical discussion, the chapter discusses the history of the relationship between religion and the state in the USA and the critique of early American feminists on the power of patriarchal religion, and claims that despite the constitutional separation between religion and state in the USA, patriarchal religion continues to influence the law directly and indirectly and constitutes a significant force preserving the hegemony of patriarchy, as the 2022 Dobbs decision demonstrates.

This chapter argues that the flaws in liberal theory and practice that religious conservatives and right-wing populists use to attack women’s rights are also used to undermine liberal democracy. It claims that due to the embeddedness of patriarchy in liberal theory and practice, liberals have chosen to disregard the feminist critique of the liberal public–private distinction and of the refusal to intervene in the nonpolitical sphere. As a result, prejudices that liberals have allowed to flourish in the private sphere serve as the basis for a successful right-wing religio-populist attack on the liberal state itself. Using the example of the USA, the chapter discusses the capture of the American Supreme Court by the populist and religiously conservative Republican Party led by President Trump. It analyzes two major abortion decisions issued by the captured Supreme Court – Whole Women’s Health and Dobbs – and shows how these decisions thoroughly undermine the liberal rights regime, transfer the control over women’s bodies and their rights to Christian religious hands, and are part of a wholesale Christian nationalist attack on American liberal democracy.

To survive the city and the war, displaced families and friends needed to keep themselves and each other physically, socially, mentally, spiritually, and culturally safe. This chapter is about this discussion of self-preservation and what this entailed when, to many, the war and displacement risked societal disaster. It explores the debates and projects that were built within new churchyards, evening schools, and social spaces, where men and women argued over what integrity and moral order looked like. Social and cultural projects – from night language schools and clan associations to childcare circles and neighbourhood vigilante gangs – all involved setting out definitions of responsibility and standards. They also raised questions about the practical meaning of being displaced ‘southerners’. In a stressful expensive city and a fragmenting southern war, this chapter explores how people developed different limits of mutual support and kinship, and understood their political community based on different standards of Blackness, shared history, and knowledge.