The situation of gender in progressive social movements

It is undeniable that, despite the progressive achievements of the feminist movement, there still exists substantive real inequality between women and men. Regarding social movements, according to ^{Osborne (2005)} , this translates into differences across various aspects such as access to resources ^{(López-Rodríguez & Gutiérrez, 2023)} , socialization models ^{(Mazzucchelli et al., 2021)} , available time ^{(Ajenjo & García, 2019}; ^{Moreno-Colom et al., 2023)} , or the influence of friends ^{(Amorós, 1990)} .

Consequently, women have occupied a particular role within social movements, often rendered invisible and significantly reduced throughout history by being relegated to the private sphere of domesticity, thereby excluding them from the public spaces to which politics has been restricted ^{(Di Liscia, 2007)} . On the other hand, as female presence in social spaces has increased, it has also been limited by transforming them into "female" contexts or debates, thereby maintaining a distinction from "male" domains ^{(Suárez et al., 2024)} .

Furthermore, despite their democratic intentions and specific claims (such as social rights, ecology, or feminisms), which may appear more accessible to women, progressive movements are not neutral to the axes of oppression operating within the societies they inhabit ^{(Horn, 2013)} . As ^{Dunezat (2017 b)} argues, patriarchal logics within activism are not only a consequence of this unequal context but also reproduce hierarchical power structures through, for example, the division of activist labor. It is within the inconsistency of simultaneously delegitimizing and reproducing domination where the special interest lies in analyzing the dynamics of internal functioning in collective mobilization.

Authors like ^{Acker (1990)} have been pointing out for decades that gender is a structural element in all social organizations, despite organizational logic appearing neutral in this regard. It is precisely behind this apparent neutrality toward gender where all expressions, experiences, and perspectives that do not conform to the "universal" male subject have been obscured ^{(Cortés & Zapata, 2021)} . Moreover, this neutrality also serves to individualize biased behaviors or gender-based discrimination, thereby deflecting organizations from acknowledging the causal and structural origins of such inequalities and their responsibility ^{(Cerva, 2014)} . However, it is in the "deep structure" ^{(Batliwala, 2012}; ^{Horn, 2013)} , latent and sometimes unconscious, of movements where deeply rooted gender roles are located, which crystallize in their patterns of participation.

For this reason, the analysis of the gender situation within social movements should not be reduced to merely the presence or absence of women in them but should instead delve into their organization and militant work to understand the extent to which they reproduce unequal patterns in this regard ^{(Horn, 2013}; ^{Dunezat, 2017 b)} .

In this regard, although the struggle for women's rights is established in the social agenda, it is common for it to be viewed within organizations as a movable or secondary priority compared to the principal claims of the movement ^{(Cortés and Zapata, 2021)} . Thus, the presence of women is considered a matter of quotas that supposedly resolves the issue, instrumentalizing women's participation to legitimize the movement as progressive.

Consequently, the everyday reality of activism continues to place women in invisible tasks: roles dedicated to caregiving, perceiving them as “tea-makers rather than speech-makers” ^{(Meer, 2005: 37)} ; peaceful forms of participation, with radical or violent actions seen as inherently male ^{(Morán-Neches and Rodríguez-Suárez, 2022)} ; or positions far removed from decision-making and the representation of the collective ^{(Biglia and Luna, 2012)} .

It should be noted, however, that even within movements where there is explicit rejection of feminism or identification with it, specific or indirect practices of what ^{Dunezat (2017 a)} terms "practical feminism" do occur. These include the distribution of activist work or the denunciation of situations of violence, although such actions are not always well received within the group ^{(Biglia & Luna, 2012)} . Failing to acknowledge the existence of gender inequalities or discriminations within the collective under the guise of equality ^{(Valcárcel, 2008)} is more common among those with a more negative stance towards feminism ^{(Velasco, 2016)} .

Furthermore, as posited by ^{Mazzuchelli et al. (2021)}, participation can be transformed into an act of resistance against collective oppression, as is the case with feminisms. Thus, feminist identity can manifest through various behaviors, both explicit and implicit ^{(Obreque & Cárdenas, 2023)}, with individuals more deeply involved in collective movements (even those unrelated to these specific claims) maintaining a more positive attitude towards feminisms ^{(Velasco, 2016)} .

Methodology

The results presented are based on the analysis using the Battery for Psychosocial Analysis of Mobilization (BAPsM), a quantitative instrument constructed ad hoc from various scales that investigate issues such as life satisfaction, social well-being, group identification, and intention for activism and radicalism. Specifically, for the current study, the results of a block of custom questions concerning participation in general and gender equality within collectives in particular will be analyzed. This includes a deep dive into the following issues:

Given that the study population consists of participants in social movements, to ensure the processes of statistical inference, a convenience sampling was conducted using the snowball technique, aiming to overrepresent both women and individuals who are relatively active in social movements. Dissemination was carried out by generating a database of 155 entities, organizations, and social action collectives in the Spanish region of Principality of Asturias, as well as direct contacts to ensure maximum thematic diversity. Consequently, the final sample comprised 920 participants. Sociodemographic characteristics are detailed in Table 1. ²

Fieldwork took place between October 2021 and May 2022. The questionnaire was self-administered online via the SurveyMonkey platform. Prior to participation, participants were informed about the research objectives and methodology, as well as the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and their voluntary participation was obtained. The research was conducted in accordance with the requirements and protocols established by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oviedo (Spain).

Data analysis was performed using the statistical software package SPSS version 27.0 (IBM Corp., 2021) (see Table 1).

Results

With respect to the social participation exhibited by the entire sample, 33.1% reported minimal or no involvement in any social movement, 29.6% indicated occasional participation, and 37.3% reported regular or high involvement in some social movement. Thus, the initial analysis of the research findings indicates, firstly, that regular and high participation is present in slightly more than one-third of the sample, aligning with the overrepresentation sought.

A brief overview of social participation in Asturias

Despite the observation that active participation is limited, within this group, we find a particular profile characterized by high mobilization across multiple areas. Thus, beyond the traditional organized and centralized participation within a specific social collective, there is a more extensive mobilization profile aimed at raising awareness and involvement in various types of advocacy.

Individually, 18 social issues were posed, and respondents rated their level of participation on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means "I do not participate" and 5 means "I participate very actively." The results are presented in Table 2, ranked from highest to lowest based on the overall average. The topics with the highest social participation include feminism, education, the environment, healthcare, and LGTBIQ+ rights, with scores exceeding 2.4 out of 5. In contrast, the topics with the lowest participation are religion, sports, as well as other issues specified by the respondents themselves, among which the most highlighted were functional diversity, mental health, solidarity economy, defense of rural areas, and childhood (see Table 2).

When asking those who participate in more than one movement in which their participation is most active, feminism is the most frequently mentioned, accounting for 27.2% of the sample, followed by education (9.2%) and labor rights (9%). When this data is disaggregated by gender, we find that the most active movement for women is feminism (35.2%), while for men, where thematic diversity is greater, it is labor rights (17.9%).

Delving into participation in specific collectives (associations, entities, and organizations), we find that nearly half of the individuals participating in any general social movement (52.1%) do so as part of a particular collective. Comparing this result by gender, 60.9% of men participate in a collective, compared to 51.2% of women. Among these individuals, 37.5% have been actively involved in such a collective for more than five years, 46.9% for one to five years, and only 15.6% have been involved for less than a year.

This indicates that bonds are highly consolidated in most cases, despite the relatively young sample. This is reflected in the fact that more than seven out of ten participants (73.6%) consider their involvement in the collective to be active or very active. Only 5% perceive their participation in the group as low or very low. However, it is noteworthy that this mobilization appears to be even more entrenched among men, with 91.7% having been involved in their collective for over a year, compared to 85.2% of women. Although the difference is small, this data underscores the enduring influence of a tradition where social participation in public spaces has historically been considered predominantly male.

On the other hand, when analyzing the reasons given by respondents who do not participate in any social movement, these have been grouped into two different categories based on their origin. On one hand, there is a set of endogenous reasons, originating from the individuals themselves, such as lack of interest, lack of knowledge, and indifference or apathy. On the other hand, there are exogenous reasons, external to the individuals, such as lack of opportunities in their environment, economic constraints, work incompatibilities, and family incompatibilities. Comparing the presence of these reasons between women and men, it is observed that women report more exogenous reasons for not participating than men. This means that their participation is more limited by external factors compared to men, whose main reasons for non-participation are self-originated.

The results are straightforward to understand when women are often the ones explicitly or implicitly assuming the burden of family responsibilities, consequently experiencing greater difficulties in reconciling work and family life. In this context, social participation takes a backseat. Similarly, women face worse working conditions in terms of temporality, hours, and schedules, as well as remuneration, which also explains their greater economic limitations and difficulties in balancing their work performance with social participation.

Moreover, while a majority of individuals involved in social movements would like to dedicate more time than they currently do these issues, this desire is more pronounced among women (83.1% compared to 73.1%). Likewise, among the reasons limiting their participation, the same pattern of endogenous and exogenous factors emerges. For women, family responsibilities and economic limitations carry more weight as reasons compared to men, for whom factors like indifference or apathy have a greater influence.

Gender situation

Despite gender equality not solely being defined by the mere presence of women in a space, the size and composition of a group significantly influence its internal dynamics, especially when members hold differing levels of social power ^{(Osborne, 2005)} . Regarding participation in social movements within the sample, 44.1% predominantly consists of women, while in 31% of cases, men and women participate in roughly equal numbers. Only 3.9% of cases report entirely female participation, and 3.6% predominantly male; the remaining cases lack this information.

When questioning participants of specific collectives, associations, or organizations about the presence of women and men in their groups, the most frequent responses indicate roughly equal participation (37.8%) and predominantly female participation (34.9%). However, when narrowing down data from broader movements to specific collectives, entirely female participation (15%) and predominantly or entirely male participation (12.3%) become more significant.

These findings, which demonstrate a significant presence of women in mobilization spaces, are contextualized by the fact that feminist movements exhibit the highest participation levels in the sample, with many collectives being non-mixed. Thus, participation is predominantly or entirely female in 63.7% of collectives where women participate in the sample, compared to 18.5% for men. It is crucial to note that these results are representative of the analyzed sample but may not apply universally across all social movements.

To delve deeper into the gender situation within the internal dynamics of these movements, respondents were asked to what extent certain situations related to equality levels occur within their collective. The percentage results are displayed in Table 3, and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4, arranged from highest to lowest presence.

Among the findings on this issue, notably high levels of avoidance and condemnation of sexist attitudes stand out, being present in 77.1% of the movements. Similarly, participants report that their participation spaces provide substantial training in gender equality (67.3%) and that both male and female proposals and initiatives are equally considered (68.2%). However, the areas with the lowest perceived levels of equality are the equitable distribution of tasks and the equal representation of the collective. When comparing the responses to these questions by women and men, we find some differences regarding the equal consideration of proposals and initiatives from both genders, as it is the women who report experiencing lower levels of equality. Specifically, while 23.8% of women believe there is little or no equality in this aspect, only 2.8% of men share this view (see Table 4).

When asking participants to what extent measures are being implemented to promote the aforementioned situations and thereby increase gender equality within their group, the results obtained are shown in Table 5 as percentages. Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics. Accordingly, a similar order is observed, where the avoidance or condemnation of sexist attitudes is the most commonly taken measure, and the equal representation of the collective the least. This appears to demonstrate a feedback pattern within the groups. The realities with which the group is most sensitized are those for which the most measures are taken, while those with lower levels of gender equality are the least attended to, thereby reproducing the status quo of the group's unequal functioning (see Table 5).

All these results allow us to observe, collectively, that while sexist attitudes are predominantly condemned within social participation groups, practical measures to implement greater gender equality among participants are taken to a lesser extent. That is, although most groups advocate for gender equality as an ideal, representation, task distribution, and consideration of proposals are not always equally and fairly executed in their daily functioning. Specifically, better situations in terms of equality are observed in more theoretical commitments (condemnation of sexist attitudes, gender training, or equal consideration of contributions), whereas practical assumptions in collective dynamics (task distribution or representation) seem to face more challenges in implementing changes.

However, it is in the situation regarding the consideration of male and female proposals and initiatives where the responses of women and men differ the most, with women perceiving that fewer measures are being implemented. Again, the area of collective representation—the most public sphere of participation (a traditionally male-dominated space)—still exhibits higher levels of gender inequality and fewer measures of change undertaken by the groups. These results are common both in broader social movements and in specific groups (see Table 6).

Finally, when respondents were directly asked if they believe sexist attitudes exist within their group, 17.6% of participants responded affirmatively. Among those who do not participate in any specific group or organization but are involved in a social movement in a broader sense, 21.7% believe that sexist attitudes are present in the movement they are part of. There are no significant differences in the responses of men and women to this question, but differences emerge when considering the composition of participation within the group.

In groups with predominantly male participation, 41.5% of participants believe that sexist attitudes are present, compared to 17.5% in groups with predominantly female participation. In cases where the composition is gender-balanced, 11.6% believe that such behaviors occur.

An open-ended space was provided for those who wished to elaborate on their response with examples. The main situations described in this context relate to the occupation of spaces and times in both the representation of the group and in daily debates, interruptions of female participants, or a disregard for feminist work. Thus, it is evident that dialogue spaces, decision-making processes, and representation within the movements are the areas where the most sexist attitudes are identified by their members, as reflected by the overall results.