Who cares? Gender-Generation Gaps in the Acceptance of Political Micro-Aggressions 

Micro-aggressions within parties tend to be considered part of the cost of doing politics. However, they are increasingly problematized as a barrier to political inclusion and equality. In this article, we draw on social psychology theory to hypothesize that the extent to which people do (not) accept political micro-aggressions is conditioned by their positionality towards the aggression. More specifically, we argue that people’s identity as a political minority or majority in relation to the type and consequences of the aggression condition their reaction towards it. We draw on unique survey experiments conducted with citizens (N=4120) and political candidates standing in the 2021 national parliamentary elections (N=1045) in Norway to test our expectations. The surveys were fielded simultaneously in spring 2022. The findings suggest that the perception of micro-aggressions is significantly gendered. Young men are most accepting of aggressive behavior, whereas young women are least accepting. Gender differences are largest when it comes to judging micro-aggressions of a sexual nature, which, as we show in a follow-up experiment with citizens (N=2026) in spring 2023, is driven by differing degrees of perceived threat proximity among men and women. Our findings contribute to the literature on the gendered cost of doing politics and suggest that (reports of) micro-aggressions in politics are perceived differently by women and men – and especially so among young generations.