Thread by @matthewkrain

New in print: Our @JofHumanRights article on the use of #gendered #framing by #humanrights #advocacy groups. Advocates or researchers: get free online access for a limited time! tandfonline.com/eprint/RW3NUBG…. Highlights & takeaways below. 1/13

Problem: Human rights groups use advocacy campaigns that highlight the sex &/or gender roles of victims or survivors. They do this to generate strong emotions, empathy, grab attention, mobilize. It's problematic. jstor.org/stable/3693516 @charlicarpenter. But does it work? 2/13

Research: My @WoosterPSCI colleagues Michele Leiby, Angie Bos & I examine whether gendered framing affects how individuals perceive #humanrights victims portrayed in advocacy campaigns & whether that makes it easier to mobilize consensus or action on behalf of the campaign. 3/13

Result #1: Gendered framing does not work as expected: It has no direct effect on opinions or willingness to act, but has indirect effects. Gendered advocacy campaigns shape how victims are perceived, which shapes opinion and mobilization. 4/13

Result #2: Gendered social roles vs. sex of victim: The sex of the person described in the campaign has no effect overall, but if portrayed as holding stereotypically feminine social roles, respondents were more likely to view them as innocent or vulnerable. 5/13

Result #3: Innocence/Vulnerability is Key: Viewing someone as innocent or vulnerable made respondents more likely to see the issue as human rights issue and be willing to mobilize to be part of a campaign to stop the abuse. 6/13

Result #4: Gendered rights campaign messages have effects, but the magnitude of these effect is small, and often not substantively meaningful. 7/13

Takeaway #1: Language matters! How we talk about human rights matters for how we mobilize opinion and action, but also how people see the issues, as well as who is deserving of rights and protections. wordstowinby-pod.com @anatosaurus @the_hope_guy @leahcwindsor 8/13

Takeaway #2: Evidence-based advocacy is important. Because messaging matters so much, how we shape our messaging should be carefully tested ahead of time. opendemocracy.net/en/openglobalr… @LibaTB 9/13

Takeaway #3: Gendered framing can shape opinion on rights issues, how victims are viewed, and willingness to mobilize. See also cup.org/3AAEVCK.
@TabithaBonilla @juhuthukral. 10/13

Takeaway #4: Advocates should consider avoiding gendered frames unless necessary. They have surprisingly minimal effects and can reinforce problematic stereotypes, cause unforeseen harms, undermine principles of rights for all. independent.co.uk/voices/comment…. 11/13

Takeaway #5: Advocates can instead highlight the innocence or vulnerability of victims or survivors of rights abuses as a way to raise awareness and mobilize support and action. See also tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108… @axhaines @AmandaMurdie. 12/13

Questions Remaining: Emphasizing only innocence or vulnerability also undermines principles of rights for all. Where does that leave advocates who work on behalf of those whom some in society do not view as innocent or vulnerable? Working on that now, so stay tuned! 13/13

@threadreaderapp unroll