This article examines how Latina Republican Congressional candidates frame themselves as both embodying and representing the “real Latino electorate,” who they claim has been ignored in the U.S. political arena. In this article, I engage in an in-depth analysis of these candidates — including content analyses of their public interviews, speeches, advertisements, websites, newspaper coverage, and social media presences — in four border districts in Texas. I find that the ways in which these candidates strategically reframe Latinidad and the immigrant experience to align with Republican ideology allow these candidates to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform while simultaneously engaging in the Latino threat narrative that dehumanizes the very community they claim to represent. More specifically, these candidates articulate an alternate, intersectional vision of Latinidad which presents Latino immigrant women and children as victims, Latino immigrant men as criminals, and themselves as unique authorities on immigration given their status as border patrol wives. These candidates’ race-gender consciousness also allows these candidates to express political anger, which has generally been denied to women of color in the Republican Party. In so doing, they offer a pointed critique claiming that Latinos are a captured group in American political parties.

Men's numerical over-representation in politics leads to complacency regarding their substantive representation. Yet the men in politics are not descriptively representative of most men and are drawn disproportionately from the most socially privileged groups. Building on theories of representation, intersectionality and masculinities, I argue that men have gendered representational needs that are not adequately met. Power structures among men leave many men marginalized and/or subordinated, and disincentivize the privileged men in power from defending disadvantaged men's interests. Masculinist cultures within politics inhibit discussion of male vulnerability and further undermine the substantive representation of men. I make the case for why we should study men's substantive representation and then show how we could do so. I propose a groundbreaking research agenda for identifying and measuring men's diverse representational needs, recognizing how these are shaped by gender and its intersection with other identities. Combining insights from objectivist, constructivist and intersectional approaches, I develop a framework for measuring the substantive representation of men that explores who represents men, which ideology informs their claims, which men are included and excluded and whether the goals of representation are to transform or uphold the status quo. I offer several illuminations of policies where different men have distinct gendered needs, and offer an extended example using educational outcomes in the United Kingdom to illustrate how privileged men are not effective representatives of disadvantaged men. This article builds the normative case and offers the theoretical tools for addressing an important gap in the study of representation.

In addition to immigration grievances, research shows that radical right voters grieve societal developments regarding gender equality and sexual freedom. Adding to research treating these grievances separately, this article advances a joint understanding of these grievances. I analyse interviews with voters of the German radical right Alternative für Deutschland for perceptions about discrimination and (dis)advantages of natives versus immigrants, men versus women and cis‐hetero versus LGBTQI+ people. I find similar argumentations about these social groups: Most interviewees do not perceive existing structural discrimination. They further perceive zero‐sum dynamics between advances for outgroups and losses for ingroups. In doing so, they consider different ingroup and outgroup characteristics, resulting in perceptions of different material and symbolic (dis)advantages for different groups and a hitherto under‐researched perception of legal (dis)advantages. Additionally, some interviewees jointly refer to various social groups in an expression of ‘multidimensional’ grievances, and some refer to the intersections between several ingroup and outgroup identities in determining a person's (dis)advantages. The parallels in argumentation and the perceptions of multidimensional and intersectional grievances highlight the importance of jointly studying different kinds of cultural grievances.

Over the past twenty years, the field of “gender and politics” has flourished in European political science. An example of this is the growing number of “gender and politics” scholars and the increased attention paid to gender perspectives in the study of the political. Against this backdrop, we take stock of how the “gender and politics” field has developed over the years. We argue that the field has now entered a stage of “consolidation”, which is reflected in the growth, diversification and professionalization of the subfield, as well as in the increased disciplinary recognition from major gatekeepers in political science. But while consolidation comes with specific opportunities, it also presents some key challenges. We identify five such challenges: (1) the potential fragmentation of the field; (2) persisting hierarchies in knowledge production; (3) the continued marginalization of feminist political analysis in “mainstream” political science; (4) the changing link between academia and society; and (5) growing opposition to gender studies in parts of Europe and beyond. We argue that both the “gender and politics” field and political science in general should address these challenges in order to become a truly inclusive discipline.

This qualitative research study examines how volunteering and nonvolunteering is associated with immigrant perceptions of their integration into US society. The study analyzes 24 semi-structured interviews to explore differences in social integration experiences and perceptions of social integration between immigrant volunteers and nonvolunteers. The study’s theoretical framework is intersectionality, and the conceptual framework consists of social integration, rational choice, and symbolic boundary theory. While past studies assert that volunteering increases feelings of social integration, this empirical study offers a comparative perspective between immigrants who volunteer and those who do not. Study findings suggest that formal immigrant volunteers build a stronger sense of agency in their social integration journeys through their contributions to American society. Data suggest that most nonvolunteering participants achieve minor benefits by engaging in informal volunteering outside of organizational auspices.

The maiden speech – the first speech given by a newly elected member of parliament (MP) – is a tradition in many parliaments, a personalized rite of passage to political power. As ethnic minority MPs remain relative newcomers, the maiden speech is, for them, even more politically charged. How do ethnic minority MPs represent their identities in this transformative moment? Our data set includes 93 ethnic minority MPs who have held a seat in the Dutch parliament, covering 88 maiden speeches, spanning 11 cycles (1986–2023). The diachronic and intersectional analysis shows that the relation between descriptive, substantive and symbolic representation for historically marginalized groups fluctuates and is influenced by the political environment. The ‘firsts’ of a particular gender/ethnicity intersectional group are less likely to narrate a minority identity than non‐firsts. Progressive party ideology influences the extent to which ethnic minority MPs emphasize an (intersectional) minoritized identity. Personal stories and family histories are often used to counter stereotypes, unmute silenced cultures and share values. The focus on the maiden speech as a political narrative sheds light on the blurry lines between substantive, symbolic and descriptive representation. The political narrative is a strategic tool for MPs from historically disadvantaged groups to represent collective identities.

Political theorists and scientists have published extensive scholarship on the political representation of the marginalised. Some notable and widely cited scholars include Jane Mansbridge, Anne Phillips, Iris M. Young, Suzanne Dovi, and Melissa Williams. They have mostly focused on the importance of representation of women and argue that such representation enhances the functioning of representative democracies. This strand of literature has made significant contributions to contemporary research, especially on studies showing how and why political representation matters. Underdiscussed, nonetheless, is how such classic studies should be taught in a classroom in the context of global movements, namely #BlackLivesMatter, #StopAsianHate, and #MeToo, where various marginalised identities intersect when subjected to oppression. We contest and strengthen some of these ideas in extant scholarship promoting diversity politics by taking intersectional and decolonial approaches. We advocate for prioritising intersectionality over diversity and for decolonising teaching political representation by centring the feminist works of BIPOC and Global South scholars. By challenging both the absence of minoritised women as political actors as well as scholars—as a matter of the production of knowledge and as political activism—we create an inclusive learning environment. We enable both the educators and students to reflect on their positionalities and furthermore achieve the long-term goal of equality in the classrooms, political institutions, and beyond.

Turnout appeals are amplified in highly polarized, hotly contested elections like 2020. The political environment included social justice unrest, overt appeals to white male voters, and new voting procedures which resonated differently across intersectional identities. Gender and race politics intertwined to create a charged environment for mobilization and for social pressure to vote. We expect the nature and effectiveness of turnout appeals to have varied by race and gender intersections. In addition, given past behavior and the climate of protest, we expect individuals under 30 were less responsive to social pressures to vote. Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS 2020), we examine whether individuals with different intersectional identities varied in their perception of social pressure to vote as well as in the effectiveness of that pressure. We find that voters are sensitive to social pressure appeals, but both perception and responsiveness vary with intersectional identity.

Intersectionality is increasingly being operationalized as part of gender mainstreaming efforts across national and multilateral contexts. One prominent example can be located in Sweden’s 2015 institutional commitment to centering future gender equality policy in an intersectional analysis. This article explores the complexities of institutionalizing intersectionality in Swedish gender equality policy processes, drawing on the situated insights of public sector gender experts and Afro-Swedish feminist activists and politicians. Key findings include the prevalence of additive interpretations of intersectionality that privilege gender, limitations in statistical practices, and uneven commitments to intersectional policymaking across different institutional contexts. Recommendations for enhancing intersectional policymaking include the incorporation of ‘Equity Data’ and qualitative insights through structured dialogues with intersectionally marginalized communities. Ultimately, this article emphasizes the necessity of centering the voices of both institutional insiders and intersectionally marginalized stakeholders to address the shortcomings of intersectional practice to enhance its transformative potential in Sweden.

Studies indicate that sexism played a prominent role in the 2016 US Presidential election (Frasure 2018; Glick 2019; Ratliff et al. 2019). President Trump’s 2024 victory signifies a tendency wherein Trump prevails upon facing a female candidate. This paper examines sexism’s influence in favorability toward Vice President Harris relative to President Trump across race and gender given Trump’s gains in minority supporters (Geiger & Reny, 2024; Robertson & Tesler, 2024). Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey I examine these attitudes across four racial groups, Asian Americans, Latinos, White, and Black U.S residents between men and women. Drawing on theories of modern and benevolent sexism, I find benevolent sexism is positively correlated with Harris favorability among men of color whereas among White men these attitudes are correlated with Trump favorability. White women high in modern sexism are less likely to favor Harris than some women of color, particularly Asian women. Notably this relationship between Trump favorability and modern sexism extends across race and gender. Such gender attitudes can inspire protective instincts toward Harris or seemingly bolster the public’s preference for male leadership, offering potential insights into the 2024 Presidential election.