pt.euronews.com
Economic Hardship Among Young Men Fuels Rise of Antifeminism in Europe
A new study by the European Policy Center links the rise of antifeminist discourse in Europe to the economic difficulties faced by young men, particularly in access to education and employment, alongside the increasing gender pay gap and housing costs.
- How does the gender pay gap and voting patterns among young people in Europe relate to the rise of right-wing extremism?
- The EPC study connects the economic challenges faced by young men to the rise of right-wing extremism. While women under 25 in some European countries now earn more than their male counterparts, the overall gender pay gap remains at 12.7%. Among young voters, 17.2% of men voted for far-right parties in the last European Parliament elections, almost double the percentage of women (9.5%). This economic hardship contributes to a political divide, with young men more likely to vote for right-wing parties and young women for progressive ones.
- What is the primary economic factor contributing to the rise of antifeminist sentiment among young men in Europe, according to the EPC study?
- A study by the European Policy Center (EPC) suggests that the economic struggles faced by young men in Europe partly explain the rise of antifeminist discourse. Young men are lagging behind young women in income, wealth, purchasing power, housing, and education; for example, only 37% of 25-34 year-olds with university degrees are men, compared to 48% of women. This disparity is particularly acute among lower socioeconomic groups, where job losses due to automation have disproportionately impacted traditionally male-dominated manual labor.
- What policy recommendations are proposed to address both the economic struggles of young men and the advancement of women's rights in Europe?
- The study's findings indicate that addressing antifeminist sentiment requires a multi-pronged approach. Simply combating misogynistic rhetoric is insufficient; solutions must also address the underlying economic factors. The author suggests policies focused on housing and job prospects for all, complementing, rather than replacing, existing support for women. Failure to address these economic disparities could lead to further political polarization and hinder progress on issues like environmental protection, migration, and economic redistribution.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the economic struggles of young men as a major driver of antifeminist sentiment. While this is a valid point, the headline and initial paragraphs place a strong focus on this aspect, potentially overshadowing other crucial contributing factors. This framing might inadvertently suggest that addressing male economic hardship is the primary solution to combating antifeminism, neglecting the importance of tackling sexism and misogyny directly.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral and objective, using data and statistics to support claims. However, phrases like "radicalization of the antifeminist discourse" and "extreme right" carry inherent negative connotations. More neutral alternatives could be used to maintain objectivity. For example, "rise of antifeminist views" and "far-right parties" could be used instead.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the economic struggles of young men and their link to antifeminist views, but it could benefit from exploring other contributing factors to the rise of antifeminist sentiments in Europe. While economic hardship is a significant aspect, omitting social, cultural, or political factors might present an incomplete picture. For example, the impact of social media algorithms or the role of specific political narratives in amplifying antifeminist voices is not examined. The analysis also omits discussion of the potential for intersectionality—how these economic factors might disproportionately affect certain groups of men based on race, ethnicity, or other factors.
False Dichotomy
The analysis doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but it risks oversimplifying the complex relationship between economic hardship and antifeminist views. It suggests a correlation but doesn't fully explore alternative explanations or the possibility of multiple interacting factors influencing the rise of antifeminism.
Gender Bias
The analysis acknowledges the gender pay gap and the fact that young women are more likely to vote for progressive parties. However, it primarily focuses on the experiences and political choices of young men. While exploring the economic hardship of young men is important, the analysis could benefit from a more balanced perspective that gives equal attention to the challenges faced by young women, especially in the context of addressing antifeminist sentiments.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the economic struggles faced by young men in Europe, which are linked to a rise in antifeminist sentiment and support for far-right parties. This fuels gender inequality by creating a political divide where young men are more likely to vote for parties that may not prioritize gender equality, while young women lean towards progressive parties. The economic disparities also contribute to the overall gender pay gap, although a recent trend shows younger women in some countries earning more than their male counterparts. The interplay between economic hardship and political polarization exacerbates existing gender inequalities.