http://hdl.handle.net/10174/20 2026-05-29T21:10:38Z http://hdl.handle.net/10174/42062 Title: Women’s mobilization and antifeminist discursive framings in Portugal’s far right Authors: Roque, Sílvia; Santos, Rita; Garraio, Júlia Abstract: Antifeminist and antigender rhetoric and campaigns have grown over the last decade, especially, but not exclusively, voiced by ultraconservative and far-right parties, movements and actors, and have prompted political and societal repercussions, with an increasingly visible participation of women in these attacks on feminism. These mobilizations are frequently articulated also through racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and transphobic discourses, in which feminism and gender equality are framed as external threats to the nation, the family, or “Western values.” From an intersectional perspective, such narratives reinforce and reproduce multiple overlapping systems of domination, simultaneously targeting gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and nationality, while legitimizing exclusionary and hierarchical social orders. These features are globally shared and have proliferated across a wide range of contexts with some degree of similarities and coordination; however, conceptualizing them only as a singular transnational movement is unwarranted. Understanding how these campaigns are articulated differently in specific contexts and mobilized toward a range of goals is key to grasp both the similarities and the uniqueness of these narratives, agendas and campaigns in specific contexts. Portugal remains an under-researched case study primarily due to the slightly later emergence of far-right movements and parties with political significance. Based on the analysis of published materials and online content produced by the far-right party CHEGA (CH) from 2022 to the 2024 national legislative election, namely news, op-eds and interviews with women from CH, and their social networks content, this article reflects on how the success of CH in mobilizing women to antifeminist agendas has been key to normalizing undemocratic antifeminist, antigender agendas in the public sphere. Through the critical analysis of CH’s discursive positions on feminism and gender, it will also examine the instrumentalization of “women’s rights” in order to put forward homophobic, transphobic, anti-immigration, racist and xenophobic agendas, namely through the participation of women in leading roles in the antifeminist campaigns. 2026-04-23T23:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10174/42061 Title: Editorial: Facing contemporary antifeminism: a call for intersectionality Authors: Roque, Sílvia; Santos, Rita; Garraio, Júlia Abstract: We live in a paradoxical political moment: feminist movements across the globe have achieved landmark legal and institutional advances over the past several decades, yet mobilizations against feminism and gender equality and justice are simultaneously intensifying, diversifying, and going transnational. Anti-gender campaigns led mostly but not exclusively by far-right populist parties, reactionary religious movements and online misogyny networks no longer operate at the political margins. They have entered parliaments and governments, shaped laws, and influenced public policy all over the world. The question confronting those interested in gender, social movements and political science is no longer whether antifeminism is a serious political force but how to analyse it with adequate complexity, and how feminist theory and practice should respond to it. This Research Topic was conceived precisely out of that urgency. Its animating conviction is straightforward: antifeminism cannot be understood in single-axis terms. It is not merely a backlash against women's rights, nor simply a product of far-right extremism, nor reducible to toxic masculinity, though it implicates all three. Contemporary antifeminism is an ideologically intersectional phenomenon entangled with racism, nationalism, neocapitalism, religious orthodoxy, classism, ableism, and cis-heteronormativity in ways that both amplify its reach and obscure its workings. Meeting it requires analytical tools of comparable complexity. The seven articles gathered in this Research Topic make precisely that case, from multiple disciplinary perspectives and geographical contexts. 2026-05-27T23:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10174/41194 Title: Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Happiness in the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Africa: A Fixed Effect Instrumental Variable Analysis Authors: Chao, Li-Wei; Leite, Rui; Farias, Ana Rita; Ramlagan, Shandir; Peltzer, Karl Abstract: BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption has been linked to better physical health. Recent studies also link FV consumption to better mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended consuming at least five servings of FV per day, but recent statistics find most populations (in both developed and developing countries) achieve far below the target, despite knowing “FV is good for health”. Two recent studies using large survey data from Australia and from the U.K. using fixed effect (FE) regression found significant and large positive associations between FV consumption and life satisfaction; the authors caution that fixed effect regression cannot show causality. METHOD AND RESULTS: Using data from the U.K., Australia, and South Africa, we apply FE and instrumental variables (IV) regressions to show that the effect of FV on life satisfaction is plausibly causal. We use the consumer price index (CPI) of FV as the instrument (F statistic > 16). We test whether controlling for individual time invariant effects was necessary, by using correlated random effects as control functions; we find that controlling for time invariant effects is not necessary for the relationship between FV and life satisfaction. We further test whether the FV variable is endogenous after controlling for FE; we find FV remains endogenous even with FE. We calculate the elasticities of FV’s effect on life satisfaction and find similar elasticities across the three countries; the increase in life satisfaction from increasing average daily FV intake by one serving would more than offset the negative effect on mental health from becoming unemployed or developing a chronic illness. To explore whether the large effect size from IV estimates is due to heterogeneous treatment effect, we apply marginal treatment effect (MTE) estimation on WHO’s five-a-day recommendation. We find that the MTE curve is downward sloped: Although some may derive large gains in marginal utility by switching from not-meeting to meeting five-a-day, others may derive little gain. Examining the potential outcomes of meeting versus not meeting five-a-day (conditioning on the individual differences in observed and unobserved resistance to meeting WHO’s guideline), we find that anyone who meets the five-a-day derives a potential high life satisfaction -- regardless of the level of resistance to eating FV. The key difference lies in the individual differences in the potential outcomes when people consume low amounts of FV. Individuals with high resistance in achieving five-a-day still have relatively high life satisfaction despite not consuming five-a-day. However, individuals with low resistance in meeting five-a-day derive very low life satisfaction had they not consumed enough FV. DISCUSSION: A public information campaign to “educate” that people will be “happy” with more FV will likely be ineffective. This is because those who derive greater happiness with more FV consumption already have low resistance to treatment and thus already consume their five-a-day. Those who do not consume five-a-day also know they are just as happy eating versus not eating five FV servings a day, so the campaign to them is irrelevant. 2023-07-10T23:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10174/41145 Title: Climate-related health risks and the willingness to pay for climate-change mitigation Authors: Coelho, Maria; Leite, Rui Abstract: Objectives: Climate change is one of the main challenges of our time, and public discourse aimed at fostering support for policies that address it often centers around its environmental impacts. However, a growing body of literature shows that the health impacts of climate change can be substantial, raising the question of whether individuals would be more willing to support policies that address these health impacts. In this study, we examine whether support for policies that mitigate the impacts of climate change differs across the health and environmental domains. Because climate change can potentially increase uncertainty and ambiguity about the future, and because its effects are distributed over time, we also examine how time preferences, risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion relate to support for such policies. Methods: We recruited 134 adults residing in Portugal to participate in an online survey that collected data on their sociodemographic characteristics, their perceptions and attitudes towards climate change, their willingness to accept tax increases aimed at mitigating adverse health and biodiversity outcomes associated with climate change, and a set of survey-based and incentivized measures of their risk aversion, ambiguity aversion, and time preferences. We measured time preference using a task based on Kirby et al. (1999), risk aversion using a task based on Holt and Laury (2002), and jointly measured risk and ambiguity aversion using a task based on Levi et al. (2010). We compared the distributions of the accepted tax increase to mitigate the health and biodiversity effects and estimated equations relating individual characteristics to policy support. Results: We find no statistically significant difference in the distributions of the accepted tax increase to mitigate health effects of climate change and the accepted tax increase to mitigate biodiversity effects. Our results indicate that, across both domains, there is no statistically significant association between risk or time preferences and the willingness to accept tax increases to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, our findings suggest that those who are more ambiguity averse are less willing to accept these same tax increases. Conclusion: This study contributes to the literature by exploring how framing climate change in terms of its health versus environmental impacts influences public support for mitigation policies. We find that individuals do not significantly differentiate between health and biodiversity outcomes, that neither risk nor time preferences appear to play a significant role, and that higher ambiguity aversion is negatively associated with willingness to support such measures. We interpret these results as suggesting that communication and advocacy strategies that focus on health impacts, as opposed to environmental impacts, are unlikely to significantly alter public acceptance of policies aimed at addressing the effects of climate change. 2025-10-30T00:00:00Z