Gender norms and attitudes about political violence

Gender norms are associated with the incidence and form of political violence, yet existing research reports mixed results on the strength and direction of this relationship. We argue that distinguishing between different dimensions of gender norms helps to explain the current empirical inconsistencies in the literature. Building on ambivalent sexism theory, we separate hostile patriarchal beliefs, which emphasize women's inferiority and threat to male dominance, from benevolent patriarchal beliefs, which portray women as pure and in need of protection. We also separate violent hypermasculine norms that justify male violence from non-violent hypermasculine norms that dictate male restraint. Using data from a nationally representative survey in Indonesia, we first examine whether patriarchal attitudes and hypermasculinity overall are associated with acceptance of political violence, as prior studies in Southeast Asia suggest. We then investigate whether hostile and benevolent beliefs differ in their effects. Our analysis shows that when separated, hostile and violent attitudes are associated with greater support for violence, while benevolent attitudes show either no relationship or a negative association. These findings refine existing theory by identifying which beliefs are most strongly associated with political violence.