Is a “Christian America” a More Patriarchal America? Religion, Politics, and Traditionalist Gender Ideology

Abstract

Recent research shows that Americans who adhere to Christian nationalism—an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity and American civic life—tend to hold authoritarian and exclusionary attitudes, particularly regarding ethno‐racial minorities and nontraditional family forms. Such findings suggest a fundamental connection between Christian nationalism and rigid symbolic boundaries, which would likely extend to Americans’ understanding of gender roles. Drawing on notions connecting religious nationalism with defenses of patriarchal norms and utilizing a recent national, random sample of American adults, the current study examines the link between contemporary Christian nationalism and traditionalist gender ideologies. Our analyses reveal that Christian nationalism is the strongest predictor of holding a more traditionalist gender ideology, even after taking into account a host of political and religious characteristics. Moreover, the relationship between Christian nationalism and gender traditionalism holds across religious traditions, including more gender‐egalitarian groups like Mainline Protestants and even the unaffiliated. We conclude by highlighting the implications of these findings for understanding contemporary populist support for Donald Trump, which previous studies have shown is undergirded by both Christian nationalism and sexism.

Dimensions of religiousness and their connection to racial, ethnic, and atheist prejudices

“…In India, Hindu nationalism is on the rise, characterized by Hindutva ideology and antagonism toward Muslims. In the United States, Christian nationalism predicted more conservative social political attitudes such as endorsement of traditional gender norms [ 59 ], opposition to stricter gun laws [ 60 ], endorsement of negative racial stereotypes [ 61 ], and intergroup bias [ 62 ]. We suspect religious nationalism is on the rise in other countries, as well.…”

Keep America Christian (and White): Christian Nationalism, Fear of Ethnoracial Outsiders, and Intention to Vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election

“…A variety of studies demonstrate that Christian nationalism is a powerful cultural framework that is influential beyond traditional religious boundaries (Braunstein and Taylor 2017;Delehanty, Edgell, and Stewart 2019), and is significantly associated with a host of consequential outcomes, including: minorities' access to material resources (Edgell et al forthcoming), support for the death penalty and other authoritarian methods of social control (Davis 2018), relative political tolerance for racists (Davis and Perry 2020), opposition to interracial families Whitehead 2015a, 2015b), denial of police brutality toward blacks (Perry, Whitehead, and Davis 2019), negative attitudes toward immigrants (McDaniel et al 2011;Sherkat and Lehman 2018) and religious minorities (Dahab and Omori 2019;Shortle and Gaddie 2015;Stewart, Edgell, and Delehanty 2018), opposition to gun control (Whitehead, Schnabel, and Perry 2018), support for gender traditionalism (Whitehead and Perry 2019), and negative attitudes toward sexual minorities (Whitehead and Perry 2015).…”

How Culture Wars Delay Herd Immunity: Christian Nationalism and Anti-vaccine Attitudes

“…Americans who embrace Christian nationalism want to see their particular expression of Christianity privileged in the national identity, public policies, and sacred symbols. One of the primary concerns of Christian nationalism is to draw boundaries around who is truly American, defining who “we” are as a nation and defending “our” status privilege over the identified “they.” 1 Consequently, the term “Christian” in “Christian nationalism” becomes a dog whistle, including assumptions about nativism, white racial identity, and cultural-political orientation but also implying white supremacy, xenophobia, and masculine-authoritarian control (Davis 2019; McDaniel, Nooruddin, and Shortle 2011; Perry and Whitehead 2015; Perry, Whitehead, and Davis 2019; Perry et al 2020; Sherkat and Lehman 2018; Shortle and Gaddie 2015; Whitehead and Perry 2019, 2020). 2…”